Impact of selected magnetic fields on the therapeutic effect in patients with lumbar discopathy: A prospective, randomized, single-blinded, and placebo-controlled clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Interdisciplinary physical therapy together with pharmacological treatment constitute conservative treatment strategies related to low back pain (LBP). There is still a lack of high quality studies aimed at an objective evaluation of physiotherapeutic procedures according to their effectiveness in LBP. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to carry out a prospective, randomized, single-blinded, and placebocontrolled clinical trial to evaluate the effectiveness of magnetic fields in discopathy-related LBP. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A group of 177 patients was assessed for eligibility based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. In the end, 106 patients were randomly assigned into 5 comparative groups: A (n = 23; magnetic therapy: 10 mT, 50 Hz); B (n = 23; magnetic therapy: 5 mT, 50 Hz); C (n = 20; placebo magnetic therapy); D (n = 20; magnetic stimulation: 49.2 μT, 195 Hz); and E (n = 20; placebo magnetic stimulation). All patients were assessed using tests for pain intensity, degree of disability and range of motion. Also, postural stability was assessed using a stabilographic platform. RESULTS: In this study, positive changes in all clinical outcomes were demonstrated in group A (p < 0.05). The most effective clinical effect was observed for pain reduction (p < 0.05), improvement of the range of motion (p < 0.05) and functional ability of the spine (p <0.05). It is also worth noting that the effects in the majority of the measured indicators were mostly short-term (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: It was determined that the application of magnetic therapy (10 mT, 50 Hz, 20 min) significantly reduces pain symptoms and leads to an improvement of functional ability in patients with LBP.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".