The Effect of Intramuscular Electrical Stimulation in Myofascial Pain Syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: This study was conducted to assess the effect of intramuscular electrical stimulation (IMES) and compared it with that of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and dry needling in the patients with myofascial pain syndrome (MPS). Method: Forty five patients with MPS was assigned randomly to TENS group (n=15), dry needling group (n=15) and IMES group (n=15). In TENS group, TENS was applied to the trigger point. In dry needling group, dry needling was applied to the trigger point. In IMES group, IMES was applied to the trigger point. Duration of treatment was 2 weeks. Effects were assessed before treatment, 1 day, 3 days, 7 days and 14 days after treatment by visual analogue scale (VAS) and McGill pain questionnaire (MPQ). Thermography was performed before treatment, 7 days and 14 days after treatment. Results: Significant change of VAS improvement ratio was noticed in IMES group from the 1 day after treatment compared with other groups. Significant change of MPQ improvement ratio was noticed in IMES group from the 3 days after treatment compared with other groups. The skin temperature difference was significantly improved in IMES group at 14 days after treatment. Conclusion: These results showed that IMES is effective treatment method for pain control in patients with MPS.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".