Randomised controlled study in the primary healthcare sector to investigate the effectiveness and safety of auriculotherapy for the treatment of uncomplicated chronic rachialgia: a study protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Uncomplicated chronic rachialgia is a highly prevalent complaint, and one for which therapeutic results are contradictory. The aim of the present study is to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of treatment with auriculopressure, in the primary healthcare sector, carried out by trained healthcare professionals via a 30-hour course. METHODS/DESIGN: The design consists of a multi-centre randomized controlled trial, with placebo, with two parallel groups, and including an economic evaluation. Patients with chronic uncomplicated rachialgia, whose GP is considering referral for auriculopressure sensory stimulation, are eligible for inclusion. Sampling will be by consecutive selection, and randomised allocation to one of the two study arms will be determined using a centralised method, following a 1:1 plan (true auriculopressure; placebo auriculopressure). The implants (true and placebo) will be replaced once weekly, and the treatment will have a duration of 8 weeks. The primary outcome measure will be the change in pain intensity, measured on a visual analogue scale (VAS) of 100 mm, at 9 weeks after beginning the treatment. A follow up study will be performed at 6 months after beginning treatment. An assessment will also be made of the changes measured in the Spanish version of the McGill Pain Questionnaire, of the changes in the Lattinen test, and of the changes in quality of life (SF-12). Also planned is an analysis of cost-effectiveness and also, if necessary, a cost-benefit analysis. DISCUSSION: This study will contribute to developing evidence on the use of auriculotherapy using Semen vaccariae [wang bu liu xing] for the treatment of uncomplicated chronic rachialgia. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN01897462.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.024 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.033 | 0.005 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".