MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2396131812

[Immediate analgesic effect of wrist-ankle acupuncture for acute lumbago: a randomized controlled trial].

2010· article· en· W2396131812 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
J A K S Su, Qing-Hui Zhou, Rui Li, Jie Zhang, Weihong Li, Qiong Wang

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAnalgesicAnkleMcGill Pain QuestionnaireRandomized controlled trialAcupunctureAnesthesiaWristPhysical therapyAdverse effectSurgeryVisual analogue scaleInternal medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To assess the immediate analgesic effect of wrist-ankle acupuncture on acute lumbago and the relationship between the analgesic effect and the expectation of patients. METHODS: A randomized, single-blind, sham-controlled trial was designed. Sixty cases of acute lumbago were randomly divided into two groups, 30 cases in each one. In observation group, wrist-ankle acupuncture was adopted to the Lower 5 and Lower 6 bilaterally, no requirement of Deqi (arrival of qi). In control group, sham acupuncture was adopted. The treatment was applied once in either group, with the needles retained for 30 min. The Short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ) and the Modified-Modified Schober (MMS) test were used to assess the motion related pain and the situation of spinal flexion in 3 min before treatment and 5 min, 10 min, 15 min, during treatment and 30 min (needle removed), respectively. The Expectation and Treatment Credibility Scale (ETCS) was applied to analyze the relationship between the expectation of patients and the analgesic effect. The adverse reaction was recorded. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences in SF-MPQ, MMS and ETCS before treatment between two groups (all P>0.05). In 5 min after needles insertion, the scores of the items in SF-MPQ in observation group were lower than those in control group (P<0.05, P<0.01). In 10 min after needles insertion, the scores of SF-MPQ in observation group were lower than those in control group and the scores of MMS were higher than those in control group (P<0.05). In 15 min after needles insertion, except the sensory pain rating index, the scores of the rest items in SF-MPQ in observation group were all lower than those in control group (P<0.05, P<0.01). In 30 min (needles removed), the scores of affective pain rating index of SF-MPQ and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) in observation group were lower than those in control group (P<0.05, P<0.01). The expectation before treatment was negatively correlated with VAS scores in 5 min, 10 min, 15 min and 30 min after needle insertion separately in observation group (P<0.05), while the correlation was not found in control group (P>0.05). No adverse reaction was reported. CONCLUSION: Wrist-ankle acupuncture can reduce acute lumbago immediately and significantly. The higher the expectation on the analgesic effect of wrist-ankle acupuncture the patients have, the better the analgesic effect will be. This therapy is highly safe in the treatment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.246 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations23
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→French-language works237,207→