A pilot investigation of the hypoalgesic effects of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation upon low back pain in people with multiple sclerosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the hypoalgesic effects of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) upon low back pain (LBP) in people with multiple sclerosis (MS). DESIGN: A randomized double-blind placebo controlled clinical pilot study. SUBJECTS AND SETTING: Fifteen people with MS were recruited and randomly allocated to one of the following groups under double blind conditions (n = 5 per group): TENS 1 (4 Hz, 200 micros), TENS 2 (110 Hz, 200 micros), placebo TENS. INTERVENTIONS: Treatment was applied for 45 minutes three times a week for six weeks with a four-week follow-up. OUTCOME MEASURES: The following outcome measures were taken at weeks 1, 6, and 10: visual analogue scale (VAS) (for current LBP, right leg pain, left leg pain); Leeds Multiple Sclerosis Quality of Life Questionnaire; Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire; Short Form-36 (SF-36) Version 1; and the McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ). VAS for current LBP, right and left leg pain were also taken before and after treatment, and once a week during the follow-up period. RESULTS: Analysis showed no statistically significant effects for any of the data. However, both active treatment groups showed a trend of improvement in the majority of the outcome measures. CONCLUSION: Active TENS was more effective than placebo TENS in decreasing VAS scores following each treatment although results were not statistically significant. Further work in this area is warranted and should include a larger number of participants in the form of a randomized controlled clinical trial to determine the efficacy of this modality.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".