The effect and safety of ozone autohemotherapy combined with pharmacological therapy in postherpetic neuralgia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: We investigated the effect and safety of ozone autohemotherapy combined with pharmacological therapy in postherpetic neuralgia (PHN). Methods: Ninety-eight patients with PHN were enrolled in this study and randomly divided into a pharmacological therapy group and ozone autohemotherapy group (49 patients in each group). The PHN patients in the pharmacological therapy group were administered pharmacological therapy for 2 weeks, whereas PHN patients in the ozone autohemotherapy group were given ozone autohemotherapy (200 mL blood from patients, the concentration of medical ozone was set as 30 μg/mL using an ozone medical apparatus, 40 mL medical ozone was incubated in 200 mL autologous blood for 3–5 minutes) combined with pharmacological therapy for 2 weeks. The Visual Analog Scale (VAS), the 50% VAS reduction in the initial value, McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ), the Patients’ Global Impression of Change (PGIC) scale, and the World Health Organization Quality of Life (WHOQOL-BREF) instrument were used to evaluate the outcomes of all PHN patients before therapy and at 1 week, 1 month, and 3 months after therapy. Results: Forty-five patients in the pharmacological therapy group and 47 patients in the ozone autohemotherapy group completed the study. Compared with before therapy, the two groups showed significant improvements in VAS, MPQ, PGIC, and WHOQOL-BREF scores after therapy ( P <0.05). Moreover, compared with the scores of the pharmacological therapy group, the ozone autohemotherapy group’s scores were significantly improved in the VAS, MPQ, PGIC, and WHOQOL-BREF as well as the 50% VAS reduction of the initial value after therapy ( P <0.05). Finally, there were no statistically significant differences in adverse effects between groups after therapy ( P >0.05). Conclusion: The results of this study demonstrated that ozone autohemotherapy combined with pharmacological therapy was superior to isolated pharmacological therapy in patients with PHN and was an effective and safe way to relieve PHN. Keywords: ozone autohemotherapy, pharmacological therapy, clinical trial, postherpetic neuralgia
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) | 0.001 | 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".