Effect of Electro-Acupuncture at the Cleft Points and Alarm Points on Renal Colic and A Accompained Symptoms in 26 Cases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To observe the therapeutic effect of electro-acupuncture(EA)at the cleft points and alarm points on renal colic and accompanied symptoms.Methods Fifty one patients with renal colic were randomized into EA group of 26cases and intramuscular injection(IM)group of 25cases.EA group was given electro-acupuncture at the cleft points of kidney channel[Shuiquan(KIS),Jinmen(BL63)]and bladder channel and related alarm points[Jingmen(GB25),Zhongji(RN3)] for 30minutes.IM group was given intramuscular injection of 100mg of bucinperazine.A short form of the McGill Pain Questionnaire(SF-MPQ)and visual analog scale(VAS)were used to score the pain.Associated symptoms scale(ASS)was developed to score the associated symptoms.The change of clinical symptoms were observed in both groups and the syndrome effect was evaluated.Results The total effective rate of the EA group and IM group was 76.92% and 44.00% respectively,with significant difference between groups(P0.01).The total effective rate in relieving pain of the EA group and IM group was 69.23%and 44.00%respectively,with significant difference between groups(P0.05).Pain relief time required in the EA group was significantly shorter than that in the IM group(P0.05).There was no significant difference between groups in complete remission time required(P0.05).Comparing with before treatment,there were significant differences in relief of associated symptoms after 10min,30min,60min and 120min of treatment(P0.05or P0.01).Comparing with 10min of treatment,there were significant differences in relief of associated symptoms after 60min and 120min of treatment(P0.05).Conclusion EA at the cleft points and alarm points for renal colic is effective,easy to operate,less toxicity,low cost and worthy of clinical application with a low recurrence rate within 24hours.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".