[Myofascial pain syndrome treated with sparrow-pecking moxibustion at trigger points: a randomized controlled trial].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy difference in treatment of myofasical pain syndrome between sparrow-pecking moxibustion and acupuncture at trigger points so as to provide the reference of the effective therapeutic method for myofascial pain syndrome. METHODS: Ninety patients were randomized into a sparrow-pecking moxibustion group and an acupuncture group, 45 cases in each one. The trigger points were selected in pain areas in the two groups. In the sparrow-pecking moxibustion group, the sparrow-pecking moxibustion was applied, 30 min in each time. In the acupuncture group, the filiform needles were inserted obliquely at 45 degrees and retained for 40 min in each treatment. The treatment was given once a day and 10 treatments made one session in the two groups. The short-form McGill pain questionnaire was used as the observation index, and the changes in pain rating index (PRI), present pain intensity (PPI) and visual analogue scale (VAS) before and after treatment were used for efficacy assessment. RESULTS: The results of PRI, PPI and VAS after treatment were reduced apparently as compared with those before treatment in the sparrow-pecking moxibustion group and the acupuncture group (all P<0.001). The differences in PRI, PPI and VAS after treatment were not significant in comparison of the two groups (both P>0.05). The curative and remarkably effective rate was 80.0% (36/45) in the sparrow-pecking moxibustion group, which was better than 40.0% (18/45, P<0.001) in the acupuncture group. CONCLUSION: Sparrow-pecking moxibustion at trigger points achieves the superior efficacy on myofascial pain syndrome as compared with acupuncture at trigger points. This therapy is simpler in operation additionally.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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.
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".