[Observation on clinical efficacy of acute pain treated with the intervention of different time of needle retention].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy on acute pain treated under the different time of needle retention so as to provide the scientific evidence for the optimization of needle retention time for acupuncture analgesia. METHODS: Eighty cases of acute pain (acute lumbar sprain, stiffness of neck) were randomized into 4 groups. Acupuncture was applied to all the patients. After the arrival of needling sensation, the needles were retained for 20 min, 30 min, 45 min and 60 min in different groups separately. For acute lumbar sprain, Ashi (Extra), Houxi (SI 3) and Weizhong (BL 40) were the main points. For stiffness of neck, Ashi (Extra), Fengchi (GB 20) and Lieque (LU 7) were the main points. McGill pain scale, the internationally recognized pain description and measurement was adopted to observe the indexes and record the score changes of each item of pain symptoms before and 3 months after treatment. The immediate analgesic efficacy under different time of needle retention and the longterm efficacy in follow-up visit 3 months after treatment were compared and assessed among the groups. RESULTS: The scores of visual analogue scale (VAS) and present pain intensity (PPI) after treatment were all improved significantly as compared with those before treatment in the 4 groups (all P<0. 01), and the result in the 45 min group was superior to the other 3 groups (VAS: 2.90+/-0.87 vs 5. 52 +/-1.01, 4.45+/-0.81, 5.95+/-1.07; PPI: 1.40+/-0.21 vs 2.26+/-0.54, 2. 21+/-0. 43, 2. 28+/-0. 74, all P<0. 01). The total effective rate of the immediate analgesia was 95. 0% (19/20) in the 45 min group, which was better than that in each of the other 3 groups. CONCLUSION: The 45 min of needle retention achieves the best efficacy of acupuncture analgesia in treatment of acute pain.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".