Clinical Observation of Combination Oral Contraceptive Pill for the Treatment of Primary Dysmenorrhea
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To evaluate the effects of combination oral contraceptive pill in reducing the pain level and menstrual distress in adolescents with primary dysmenorrhea.Methods 130 patients with primary dysmenorrhea were randomly divided into experimental group(n=70) and control group(n=60).The experimental group was given combination oral contraceptive pill,the control group was only told to rest.Pre-intervention and post-intervention datas at 1 month,3 months,and 6 months were gathered on the biopsychosocial outcomes of dysmenorrhea.Outcomes were measured through ①the Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire(SF-MPQ);②the Visual Analogue Scale(VAS),③the Menstrual Distress Questionnaire(MDQ).Results There were no significant differences in SF-MPQ,VAS and MDQ scores before the intervention beteen the experimental group and control group(P0.05).Compared with control group,there was significant decrease in pain score for VAS,SF-MPQ and MDQ after 1 month intervention(P0.05);statistically significant reduction of SF-MPQ,VAS scores(P0.01),and significant reduction of MDQ scores(P0.05) at 3 months after the intervention;statistically significant reduction of SF-MPQ,VAS,MDQ scores(P0.01) at 6 months after the intervention.Conclusion Combination oral contraceptive pill can effectively relieve the pain and menstrual distress level resulted from dysmenorrhea.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".