Effectiveness of strengthened stimulation during acupuncture for the treatment of Bell palsy: a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The traditional Chinese theory of acupuncture emphasizes that the intensity of acupuncture must reach a threshold to generate de qi, which is necessary to achieve the best therapeutic effect. De qi is an internal compound sensation of soreness, tingling, fullness, aching, cool, warmth and heaviness, and a radiating sensation at and around the acupoints. However, the notion that de qi must be achieved for maximum benefit has not been confirmed by modern scientific evidence. METHODS: We performed a prospective multicentre randomized controlled trial involving patients with Bell palsy. Patients were randomly assigned to the de qi (n = 167) or control (n = 171) group. Both groups received acupuncture: in the de qi group, the needles were manipulated manually until de qi was reached, whereas in the control group, the needles were inserted without any manipulation. All patients received prednisone as a basic treatment. The primary outcome was facial nerve function at month 6. We also assessed disability and quality of life 6 months after randomization. RESULTS: After 6 months, patients in the de qi group had better facial function (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 4.16, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.23-7.78), better disability assessment (differences of least squares means 9.80, 95% CI 6.29-13.30) and better quality of life (differences of least squares means 29.86, 95% CI 22.33-37.38). Logistic regression analysis showed a positive effect of the de qi score on facial-nerve function (adjusted OR 1.07, 95% CI 1.04-1.09). INTERPRETATION: Among patients with Bell palsy, acupuncture with strong stimulation that elicited de qi had a greater therapeutic effect, and stronger intensity of de qi was associated with the better therapeutic effects. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov no. NCT00685789.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".