MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2890319156

The Addition of Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation with Roller Massage Alone or in Combination Did Not Increase Pain Tolerance or Range of Motion.

2018· article· en· W2890319156 on OpenAlexaff
James D. Young, Alyssa‐Joy Spence, Gerard Power, David G. Behm

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSports injuries and prevention
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMassageMedicineVisual analogue scaleRange of motionTranscutaneous electrical nerve stimulationPhysical therapyDelayed onset muscle sorenessStimulationPhysical medicine and rehabilitationAnesthesiaInternal medicineMuscle damage
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Roller massage (RM) can be painful and induce muscle activity during application. Acute increases in pain pressure threshold (PPT) and range of motion (ROM) have been previously reported following RM. It is unclear whether the RM-induced increases in PPT and ROM can be attributed to changes in neural or muscle responses. To help determine if neural pain pathways are affected by roller massage, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) was utilized as a form of electroanalgesia during RM with PPT and ROM tested on the affected and contralateral quadriceps. The purpose of this study was to evaluate in both quadriceps, the effect of brief intense TENS on PPT and ROM following unilateral RM of the quadriceps. A randomized within subjects' design was used to examine local and non-local effects of TENS and roller massage versus a control condition (rolling without TENS application). Four 30s bouts of roller massage of the dominant quadriceps were implemented with 30s of rest. The researcher applied the RM using a constant pressure device with approximately 70% of the maximum tolerable load. Perceived pain was monitored using a visual analog scale (VAS) during RM. Ipsilateral and contralateral quadriceps ROM and PPT were measured immediately following RM. Significant main effects for time showed increased PPT and ROM in both the treated and contralateral quadriceps, with no significant main effects for intervention or interactions for intervention and time. Moderate to large effect sizes and minimal clinically important differences (MCID) were detected when comparing baseline to pre- and post-tests respectively. VAS scores were significantly (main effect for intervention) and near significantly (interactions) reduced with MCID when TENS was applied during rolling. The addition of TENS to rolling did not increase PPT or ROM in the affected or contralateral quadriceps, likely due to a repeated testing effect.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.222 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicSports injuries and preventionFrench-language works237,207