Effect of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation on Pain Intensity and Quality of Burn Dressing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and purpose: The most experienced pain of burn injuries occur during dressing changes. This pain requires high doses of opioids . Some evidences suggest that changes in cortical irritability, cathodal somatosensory cortex stimulation, could be effective in relieving acute pain. The aim of this study was to determine the effect of Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) on qu ality of pain in burn dressing . Materials and methods: A randomized clinical trial including 60 eligible patients hospitalized in burn department of Imam Reza (AS) Hospital in Mashhad were divided into two groups through accessible sampling. In intervention group, patients received cathodal somatosensory cortex stimulation for 20 minutes with one mA current intensity before dressing change in addition to receiving painkillers (if necessary). The treatment protocol was performed in the control group too, however, the tDCS device was turned off after 30 seconds of stimulation. Pain visual analog scal e was completed before the intervention and short and modified - form McGill pain questionnaire was applied after dressing. Data was analyzed by Chi - square, independent t - test and Mann - Whitney tests using SPSS software V. 11 . Results: There was no significa nt difference in background pain intensity before the intervention (P=0.088). Significant differences was found between the two groups in the mean scores of sensory, affective, and total pain quality during the burn dressing (P<0.05). Also, pain intensity of during dressing was significantly different between the control and intervention groups (P<0.001). However, in two groups the results showed no significant difference when comparing the pain pattern of burn dressing (P =0.145). Conclusion: Transcranial direct current stimulation alongside other methods could be used as a safe and effective intervention for reducing the intensity of pain in burn dressing.
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 | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".