MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2149537220

Effect of heat therapy on pain severity in primigravida women.

2011· article· en· W2149537220 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Fariba Fahami, Fereshteh Behmanesh, Mahboubeh Valiani, Elaheh Ashouri

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMcGill Pain QuestionnaireIntensity (physics)Labor painStage (stratigraphy)Pain reliefPhysical therapySignificant differenceAnesthesiaPregnancyVisual analogue scaleInternal medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Labor pain relief has been considered since many years ago. Heat as a non pharmacological method of pain relief helps reducing the pain intensity and increases the pain consistency. The aim of the study was to determine the effect of the heat therapy on the labor pain in primigravida women. METHODS: In this clinical trial study, 64 low risk nulliparous women were randomly divided into two heat therapy and routine care groups. In addition to the routine cares, warm bag were used for the heat therapy group for the low back, from cervix dilatation of 3-4 cm to the end of the labor's first stage and for perinea at the second stage. The pain intensity was determined by McGill pain questionnaire in dilatation of 3-4, 6-7 and 9-10 cm and at the end of the labor's second stage. Data was analyzed using t-test and chi square test by using SPSS 11. RESULTS: Results of research showed a significant decrease in the pain intensity in the heat therapy group at the first stage and the second stage of labor and comparing two groups showed significant difference(p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: According to the results of this study, it seems that heat therapy in addition to its beneficial effects, causes the mother to sense the labor pain in a lower pain severity.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.807
Threshold uncertainty score0.386

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.251 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations24
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicMaternal and Perinatal Health InterventionsFrench-language works237,207