Effects of Reiki energy therapy on saphenous vein incision pain: A randomized clinical trial study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: This study aimed to determine the effect of energy therapy on saphenous vein incision pain after coronary artery bypass grafting [CABG]. Methods: Forty patients after CABG were randomly assigned to Reiki and Sham Reiki groups. The intensity and sensory as well as affective qualities of pain were measured before and after the interventions. The patients underwent Reiki healing energy and sham Reiki for 9 minutes. The short and modified version of the McGill pain questionnaire and the Visual Analog Scale was used for pain measurement. Results: There was a significant difference between the Reiki and sham Reiki groups in the mean scores of pain sensory quality in the legs. However, no statistically significant difference was found between the two groups in the mean scores of pains severity and affective quality of pain in the legs [P>0.05]. Conclusion: Reiki could be used as a simple and cost-effective nursing intervention for managing sensory dimension of pain quality in the patients’ after CABG.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".