Clinical Study of Moxibustion plus Pricking-cupping Bloodletting for the Treatment of Lumbar Spine Osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To investigate the clinical efficacy of moxibustion plus pricking-cupping bloodletting in treating lumbar spine osteoarthritis. Methods One hundred and twenty patients with lumbar spine osteoarthritis were randomly allocated to groups A, B, C and D, 30 cases each. Group A received moxa-box moxibustion; group B, pricking-cupping bloodletting; group C, moxibustion plus pricking-cupping bloodletting; group D, oral administration of ibuprofen. All the four groups were treated for four weeks and followed up at four weeks after the end of treatment. The Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale scores, Fairbank's scores and the VAS scores were compared between the four groups before and after treatment and at the follow-up. Results There was a statistically significant difference in the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale score between group C and group A or D at the end of treatment and the follow-up(P0.01). There was no statistically significant difference in the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale score between group B and group A or D at the end of treatment and the follow-up(P0.05). There was a statistically significant pre-/post-treatment difference in Fairbank's score in all the four groups(P0.05). There was a statistically significant difference in Fairbank's score between at the end of treatment and at the follow-up in all the four groups(P0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in Fairbank's score between the four groups at the end of treatment and the follow-up(P0.05). There was a statistically significant pre-/post-treatment difference in the VAS score in group C(P0.01). There was a statistically significant difference in the VAS score between group C and group A, B or D at the end of treatment and the follow-up(P0.01). Conclusion Moxibustion plus pricking-cupping bloodletting is an effective way to treat lumbar spine osteoarthritis.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".