Short-Term Change of Handgrip Strength After Trigger Point Injection in Women With Muscular Pain in the Upper Extremities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine overall handgrip strength (HGS), we assessed the short-term change of HGS after trigger point injection (TPI) in women with muscular pain in the upper extremities by comparison with established pain scales. METHODS: The study enrolled 50 female patients (FMS with MPS group: 29 patients with combined fibromyalgia [FMS] and myofascial pain syndrome [MPS]; MPS group: 21 patients with MPS) who presented with muscular pain in the upper extremities at Konyang University Hospital. In addition, a total of 9 healthy women (control group) were prospectively enrolled in the study. We surveyed the three groups using the following established pain scales: the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ), the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), and the Short Form McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ). HGS was measured in both hands of study participants using a handgrip dynamometer. We performed TPI (0.5% lidocaine, total 10 mL, injected at the pain site of upper extremities). After 20 minutes, we remeasured the patient's HGS and MPQ score. RESULTS: ANOVA analysis was conducted among groups. Based on Tukey multiple comparison test, the majority of FIQ and SF-36 subscales, total FIQ and SF-36 scores, MPQ and HGS were significantly different between FMS with MPS and the other groups. There was no statistically significant difference between MPS and control groups. Higher HGS was positively associated with enhanced physical function, negatively associated with total FIQ and MPQ scores, and positively associated with the total SF-36 score calculated using Spearman correlation. Post-TPI MPQ decreased and HGS increased. In patient groups, a negative correlation was found between MPQ and HGS. CONCLUSION: The HGS test might potentially be a complementary tool in assessing the short-term treatment effects of women with muscular pain in the upper extremities.
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".