[Post-stroke shoulder-hand syndrome treated with floating-needle therapy combined with rehabilitation training: a randomized controlled trial].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical efficacy in the treatment of post-stroke shoulder-hand syndrome between floating-needle therapy and conventional acupuncture on the basis of rehabilitation training. METHODS: One hundred cases of post-stroke shoulder-hand syndrome were randomized into a floating-needle group and an acupuncture group, 50 cases in each one. The passive and positive rehabilitation training was adopted in the two groups. Additionally, in the floating-needle group, the floating-needle therapy was used. The needle was inserted at the site 5 to 10 cm away from myofasical trigger point (MTrP), manipulated and scattered subcutaneously, for 2 min continuously. In the acupuncture group, the conventional acupuncture was applied at Jianqian (EX-UE), Jianyu (LI 15), Jianliao (TE 14), etc. The treatment was given once every two days, 3 times a week, and 14 days of treatment were required. The shoulder hand syndrome scale (SHSS), the short form McGill pain scale (SF-MPQ) and the modified Fugl-Meyer motor function scale (FMA) were used to evaluate the damage severity, pain and motor function of the upper limbs before and after treatment in the two groups. The clinical efficacy was compared between the two groups. RESULTS: SHSS score, SF-MPQ score and FMA score were improved significantly after treatment in the two groups (all P < 0.01), and the improvements in the floating-needle group were superior to those in the acupuncture group (all P < 0.05). The total effective rate was 94.0% (47/50) in the floating-needle group, which was better than 90.0% (45/50) in the acupuncture group (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The floating-needle therapy combined with rehabilitation training achieves a satisfactory efficacy on post-stroke shoulder-hand syndrome, which is better than the combined therapy of conventional acupuncture and rehabilitation training.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 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) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".