A clinical efficacy of electrode pharmaphoresis in treatment of railway workers with low-back pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate clinical efficacy and tolerability of electrode pharmaphoresis using preparations xefocam and mydocalm-richter in railway workers with low-back pain. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Authors carried out an open prospective noncomparative study of 16 patients, aged 21-82 years, with spinal osteochondrosis with root syndrome and radiculopathia of the lumbar/sacral spine with pain syndrome regardless of its duration. Treatment efficacy was assessed by the dynamics of pain syndrome severity based on the scores of a self-rated scale completed by the patient and the McGill Pain Questionnaire. Quality-of-life was assessed with the Oswestry Disability Index before and in the end of treatment. Clinical outcome was evaluated with the modified Nurick scale. Electrode pharmaphoresis (the "Farma T.E.B. Trans Epidermal Barrier Physio" apparatus) was administered to all patients using xefocam (solution for injections 8 mg, 2 ml per procedure) and mydocalm-richter (solution for injections 100 mg, 2 ml per injection) in the lumbar/sacral spine. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: The high clinical efficacy of electrode pharmaphoresis using xefocam and mydocalm-richter was shown. The complex restoration study resulted in the reduction of pain syndrome in all patients. Pain severity was reduced to mild grade in 68.8% to the middle of treatment and in 93.8% patients in the end of treatment. As a consequence of pain reduction, the functional activity (quality of self-service, daily activities) increased significantly in 68.8% of patients. Positive treatment effect was noted in 100% of patients, good tolerability of this medication in 87.5%.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".