[Controlled observation on the efficacy of thoracic facet joint disorder treated with electroacupuncture and manual reduction].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the difference in the efficacy on thoracic facet joint disorder between the combined therapy of electroacupuncture and manual reduction and the simple manual reduction. METHODS: One hundred and sixty patients were randomized into an electroacupuncture and manual manipulation group (group A) and a simple manual manipulation group (group B), 80 cases in each one. In the group A, Ashi points and three pairs of Jiaji (EX-B 2) bilateral to the painful sites were selected. The perpendicular puncture was used at Ashi points, the oblique puncture was used at Jiaji (EX-B 2) and connected with electric stimulation for 20 min, additionally, the corresponding manual reduction was adopted at the sites of facet joint disorder. In the group B, the simple manual reduction was applied to the affected sites. Acupuncture was given once every day, the manual reduction was applied once every 10 days. The treatment of 10 days made one session. The efficacy was analyzed statistically at the end of two sessions of treatment. Before and after treatment, McGill pain scale was adopted for the value statistical analysis. PRI score, VAS score and PPI score of patients were calculated before and after treatment and compared in the two groups. The efficacy was compared between the two groups. RESULTS: The curative rate was 56.3% (45/80) in the group A, which was better than 18.8% (15/80) in the group B (P< 0.01). The total effective rate was 95.0% (76/80) in the group A, which was better than 76.3% (61/80) in the group B (P<0.01). The scores of PRI, VAS and PPI after treatment were all improved significantly in the two groups (all P<0.05), in which, the results in the group A were better than those in the group B (PRI: 4.00 +/- 0.97 vs 5.44 +/- 1.16, VAS: 3.29 +/- 0.72 vs 3.87 +/- 0.81, PPI: 1.07 +/- 0.74 vs 1.64 +/- 0.90, all P<0.05). CONCLUSION: The combined therapy of electroacupuncture and manual manipulation achieves the superior efficacy on thoracic facet joint disorder as compared with the simple manual manipulation. The combined therapy relieves the symptoms of thoracic facet joint disorder and reduces the severity of disorder.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".