Therapeutic effectiveness of neuromuscular electrical stimulation for treating patients with chronic low back pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This retrospective study investigated the effectiveness and safety of neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) for patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP).A total of 72 patients with CLBP were included in this retrospective study. All patients received usual care, and were assigned to a NMES group (n = 36) and a control group (n = 36). In addition, patients in the NMES group also received NMES for a total of 4 weeks. The primary outcome was pain intensity, measured by numerical rating scale (NRS). The secondary outcome was disability, assessed by the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), and the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale (QBPDS). The outcomes were evaluated before and after 4-week treatment.After 4-week treatment, the patients in the NMES group did not show better effectiveness in pain intensity relief, as measured by NRS (P = .11); and disability improvement, as evaluated by the RMDQ (P = .14), and QBPDS (P = .33), when compared with the patients in the control group. Additionally, no adverse events related to the NNES were recorded.The results of this study did not show promising effectiveness of NMES for patients with CLBP after 4-week treatment.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".