The efficacy of a preparatory phase of a touch-based approach in treating chronic low back pain: a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Massage therapy is an important element of rehabilitation in the treatment of chronic low back pain (CLBP). The objective of this study was to determine the relative efficacy of massage therapy between traditional massage and a new massage approach for CLBP. We also examined whether any reduction in pain was linked to interoceptive awareness and parasympathetic activation. Methods: A single-blind, randomized, controlled trial of 51 patients who were allocated into a traditional massage therapy group (TMG; N=24, mean age: 50.54±9.13 years) or experimental massage therapy group (SMG; N=27, mean age: 50.77±6.80 years). The primary outcome was the reduction in pain per the visual analog scale (VAS); the secondary outcome measures were multidimensional pain intensity on the McGill Pain Questionnaire, pain-related disability per the Waddel Disability Index, interoceptive awareness per the Multidimensional Assessment of Interoceptive Awareness Questionnaire, quality of life per the Short Form - 12 Health Survey, and heart rate variability, expressed as the coherence ratio (CR) by photoplethysmography. The following outcome measures were assessed at baseline, at the end of the treatment program, and at the 3-month follow-up. The mean and standard deviation were calculated for continuous data. Mann–Whitney U test was used to perform between-group comparisons, Friedman’s analysis was used for data on the 3 assessment times in each group, and Spearman’s R coefficient was used to analyze correlations. Results: Both approaches had a positive result on pain, an effect that was more acute in the SMG versus TMG for all pain scales, with better maintenance at the 3-month follow-up (VAS p =0.005 and p =0.098; Waddell Index p =0.034 and 0.044; McGill total p =0.000 and 0.003). In the SMG, CR scores were significant at baseline and at the end of the treatment program ( p =0.000 and 0.002). Conclusion: The new massage approach with a preparatory phase that is pleasant to the touch was more effective than the traditional approach for CLBP. Keywords: perception, rehabilitation, quality of life, pain memory, massage
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".