MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2553773862 · doi:10.1136/acupmed-2016-011110

Treating Primary Dysmenorrhoea with Acupuncture: A Narrative Review of the Relationship between Acupuncture ‘dose— and Menstrual Pain Outcomes

2016· review· en· W2553773862 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueAcupuncture in Medicine · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMenstrual Health and Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Western SydneyMcGill University
KeywordsAcupunctureMedicinePhysical therapyNarrative reviewAlternative medicineIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: A number of randomised controlled trials have been performed to determine the effectiveness or efficacy of acupuncture in primary dysmenorrhoea. The objective of this review was to explore the relationship between the 'dose' of the acupuncture intervention and menstrual pain outcomes. METHODS: Eight databases were systematically searched for trials examining penetrating body acupuncture for primary dysmenorrhoea published in English up to September 2015. Dose components for each trial were extracted, assessed by the two authors and categorised by neurophysiological dose (number of needles, retention time and mode of stimulation), cumulative dose (total number and frequency of treatments), needle location and treatment timing. RESULTS: Eleven trials were included. Components of acupuncture dose were well reported across all trials. The relationship between needle location and menstrual pain demonstrated conflicting results. Treatment before the menses appeared to produce greater reductions in pain than treatment starting at the onset of menses. A single needle during menses may provide greater pain reduction compared to multiple needles. Conversely, multiple needles before menses were superior to a single needle. Electroacupuncture may provide more rapid pain reduction compared to manual acupuncture but may not have a significantly different effect on overall menstrual pain. CONCLUSIONS: There appear to be relationships between treatment timing and mode of needle stimulation, and menstrual pain outcomes. Needle location, number of needles used and frequency of treatment show clear dose-response relationships with menstrual pain outcomes. Current research is insufficient to make definitive clinical recommendations regarding optimum dose parameters for treating primary dysmenorrhoea.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.595
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.062
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.334 · 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