Effects of Massage in Reducing the Pain and Anxiety of the Cardiac Surgery Critically Ill—a Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of hand massage on the pain and anxiety of the cardiac surgery critically ill. Design: A three-arm randomized controlled trial. Setting: This study was conducted in a medical-surgical intensive care unit in Canada. Subjects: Adult patients who underwent elective cardiac surgery, who were able to speak French/English and to self-report symptoms, without a high risk of postoperative complications were eligible. Methods: Patients were randomly allocated to standard care plus either two 20-minute hand massages (experimental), two 20-minute hand holdings (active control), or two 20-minute rest periods (passive control/standard care). Pain intensity, pain unpleasantness, anxiety, muscle tension, and vital signs were evaluated before, after, and 30 minutes later for each intervention. Results: From the 83 patients recruited, 60 were randomized (20 massage, 19 hand holding, 21 standard care). After controlling for baseline scores, the massage group reported significantly lower pain intensity, pain unpleasantness, and anxiety for the first data collection set compared with both hand holding and standard care (analysis of covariance, P < 0.02), with an average decrease of two points on a 0-10 scale. No statistically significant differences were noted between hand holding and standard care for any of the symptoms. Similar results were observed for the second data collection set (N = 43). Patients had decreased muscle tension post massage. Vital signs did not differ significantly between groups. Conclusions: Findings suggest that a 20-minute hand massage in addition to routine postoperative pain management can concomitantly reduce pain intensity, pain unpleasantness, and anxiety by two points on average on a 0-10 scale.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.029 | 0.099 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".