Effects of Low-Level Laser Therapy and Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation on Pain and Hand Function Following Carpal Tunnel Syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: This study aimed to compare the short-term effects of Low-Level Laser Therapy (LLLT) and Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (TENS) on hand pain and function in patients with low or moderate levels of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome (CTS). Materials and Methods : Twenty-four patients with confirmed mild to moderate CTS were recruited for this study. The eligible patients were randomly divided into two groups: LLLT and TENS. Patients in the LLLT group were exposed to GaAlAs diode laser, 808 nm with 6.5 J/cm 2 for two points perpendicularly over the carpal area. Patients in the TENS group were treated daily by conventional TENS with 80 µs duration for a period of 30 minutes per day. All patients were treated daily, five days per week for a period of two weeks. The researchers performed clinical assessment using visual analogue scale and McGill Pain questionnaire for pain rating and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire for functional scales. For statistical analysis, paired t-test was used in each group, and analysis of variance was used for comparison between groups. Results: All outcome measures in the LLLT group were substantially improved while the TENS group provided better pain sensation. Conclusion: This study documented that LLLT might be effective in reducing pain and improving function in patients with mild to moderate CTS. Electrical stimulation might have been effective (short term) in controlling pain in these patients. Keywords: Carpal Tunnel Syndrome; Function; Low-level Lasers; Pain; TENS
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".