Efek Elektroakupunktur dan Akupunktur Tradisional Terhadap Penurunan Intensitas Nyeri pada Pasien Low Back Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Low Back Pain (LBP) is a disease affecting many people with high prevalence. Acupuncture is a complementary and alternative medicine that has been recognized as an optional therapy for LBP clinical improvement. There are several methods of treatment with acupuncture on LBP: the traditional one with techniques and methods referring to ancient Chinese medicine, and another method developed from research, which is the electro acupuncture.Objective: This study aimed at comparing the effectiveness of electro acupuncture method and traditional acupuncture in reducing pain in patients with LBP.Methods: This research was a quasy-experimental study with a cohort design. The respondents were LBP patients who visited the acupuncture clinic in Bethesda Hospital. Samples were taken using accidental sampling technique, with as many as 34 people divided into 2 groups: 21 patients with LBP underwent electro acupuncture and 13 others underwent traditional acupuncture method. Before undergoing acupuncture, the pain of the respondents was measured using the Short Form McGill Pain questionnaire (SFMPQ). After respondents underwent acupuncture for 12 times, pain measurements were repeated with SFMPQ. Data were then analyzed using the Mann Whitney test.Results: In both groups of acupuncture therapy, it was found that the results of electro acupuncture and traditional acupuncture were of the same level of effectiveness in reducing pain in LBP. There was no significant difference in lowering the level of pain of LBP in both methods.Conclusion: Electro acupuncture and traditional acupuncture had the same level of effectiveness in reducing pain of LBP, but there was no significant difference between the two in lowering the levels of pain.ABSTRAKLatar belakang: Low Back Pain (LBP) atau nyeri pinggang bagian bawah adalah penyakit yang sampai saat ini masih banyak diderita masyarakat, dengan prevalensi yang masih tinggi. Akupunktur merupakan pengobatan komplementer dan alternatif yang telah diakui sebagai terapi pilihan untuk perbaikan LBP secara klinis. Ada beberapa metode pengobatan dengan akupunktur pada LBP yaitu secara tradisional dengan teknik dan metode yang masih mengacu pada kedokteran Cina kuno, serta metode yang dikembangkan dari hasil penelitianyaitu Elektro akupunktur.Tujuan: Penelitian ini bertujuan membandingkan efektivitas metode elektro akupunktur dengan akupunktur tradisional dalam menurunkan tingkat nyeri pada penderita LBP.Metode: Jenis penelitian ini adalah quasi eksperimental, dengan rancangan cohort. Responden penelitian adalah penderita LBP yang berkunjung ke poliklinik akupunktur RS Bethesda yang diambil menggunakan teknik accidental sampling yaitu sebanyak 34 orang yang terbagi kedalam 2 kelompok yaitu 21 orang penderita LBP yang menjalani tindakan elektro akupunktur dan 13 orang penderita LBP yang menjalani tindakan akupunktur tradisional. Sebelum menjalani akupunktur, dilakukan pengukuran nyeri dengan menggunakan Short Form Mcgill Pain Questionnare (SFMPQ) pada responden. Setelah responden menjalani akupunktur selama 12 kali, selanjutnya dilakukan pengukuran ulang dengan SFMPQ. Data dianalisis dengan menggunakan uji Mann Whitney.Hasil: Pada kedua kelompok terapi akupunktur, ditemukan hasil bahwa elektro akupunktur dan akupunktur tradisional sama-sama memiliki efektifitas dalam menurunkan tingkat nyeri LBP. Tidak ada perbedaan yang bermakna dalam menurunkan tingkat nyeri LBP pada kedua metode.Kesimpulan: Elektro akupunktur dan akupunktur tradisional sama-sama memiliki efektivitas dalam menurunkan tingkat nyeri LBP, tetapi tidak ada perbedaan yang bermakna antara keduanya dalam menurunkan tingkat nyeri.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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".