MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2891143110

Five Herbs Plus Thiamine Reduce Pain and Improve Functional Mobility in Patients With Pain: A Pilot Study.

2017· article· en· W2891143110 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Robert J. Hedaya

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmacological Effects of Medicinal Plants
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineVisual analogue scaleUrtica dioicaPhysical therapyContext (archaeology)Traditional medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Context • Five herbs-Urtica dioica (stinging nettle), Boswellia serrata, Equisetum arvense, Allium sativum, and Apium graveolens-have been demonstrated to have activity at several anti-inflammatory pathways and have analgesic properties that are effective in treating chronic musculoskeletal pain. Objectives • The study intended to evaluate the clinical efficacy of a proprietary blend of U dioica, B serrata, E arvense, A sativum, A graveolens, and thiamine (vitamin B1), or "the blend," in the treatment of chronic musculoskeletal pain. Methods • The research team performed a prospective case study. Setting • The study took place at the National Center for Whole Psychiatry in Chevy Chase, MD, USA. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were patients who had experienced baseline persistent musculoskeletal pain for at least 4 mo in ≥1 body parts without relief from traditional treatments. Intervention • Participants were provided with a 14-d supply of the study's medication. Two 350-mg capsules were administered 2 ×/d with food. The participants were instructed not to alter or add any therapies for their pain-associated condition for the 14 d of the study. Outcome Measures • The primary outcome measure was the change on a subjectively scored visual analogue scale (VAS), similar to the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index. The VAS was used to assess pain and the impact of motion and mobility at each location with pain. Each patient was administered the VAS rating scale to assess physical function and pain status at baseline and at the end of 14 d or postintervention. Patients were seen for follow-up at a minimum of 2 wk and underwent an interview, with the VAS rating scale being readministered. Results • A total of 13 patients, involving 27 pain sites, qualified for the study, 5 males and 8 females with a median age of 58 y. The primary sites of pain were (1) the knees-5 sites (18.5%), (2) the shoulders-6 sites (16.6%), and (3) the back (sciatica)-5 sites (18.5%), with 11 miscellaneous locations (40.7%) making up the rest of the sites, including the neck, jaw, foot, heel, and coccyx. The mean disease duration was 5.61 y, with a range of 4 mo to 20 y. The average VAS pain subscale score was 58.04 at baseline and 23.33 at follow-up. The mean difference between the 2 scores was 34.71 (confidence interval [CI], 26.16-47.01). A significant reduction in the pain scores had occurred by the follow-up assessment (t = 7.23, P < .05). The average VAS subscale score for functional mobility was 56.67 at baseline and 28.70 at follow-up. The mean difference between the 2 mobility scores was 27.97 (CI, 17.86-38.88). A significant improvement in the ability to move had occurred in the affected areas by the follow-up assessment (t = 5.97, P < .05). No adverse effects were reported. Conclusions • A clinically significant reduction in perceived pain and improvement in functional mobility had occurred for the intervention group as related to their chronic joint, back, and muscle pain. The complex of 5 herbs, plus vitamin B1, was well tolerated, and the results suggest that the blend should be considered to be a valuable alternative treatment in the management of chronic musculoskeletal pain.

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)0.001
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: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: Non-randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 designNon-randomized 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

Citations17
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicPharmacological Effects of Medicinal PlantsFrench-language works237,207