Possible Role of Court-Type Thai Traditional Massage During Parturition: a Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Objectives: Court-type Thai traditional Massage (c-TTM) applied during intrapartum may have some benefit other than pain relief. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of c-TTM during the first and second stage of labor, as well as pain alleviation in the first stage.Methods: This was a randomized controlled trial study. Eligible participants were singleton pregnant mothers with cervical dilation between 3–5 cm and no medical complications. Both trial groups received the same routine antepartum care except for 1 hour additional c-TTM given to the experimental group when they were in the active phase of labor. The pain score was taken from the participants at the time before labor pains started, at the time of active labor, 1, 2, 3, and 4 hours after the intervention. Pain was recorded by the researcher using a visual analog scale. The primary outcome during the first and second stages of labor was compared between groups. Pain relief during the first stage of labor and analgesic drugs used were compared as a secondary outcome. This trial is registered under the identification number TCTR20171115003.Results: Fifty-nine participants were enrolled and randomly assigned with 1:1 allocation to groups. The duration of first and second stage labor was significantly shorter in the experimental c-TTM than in the conventional control group (mean ± SD: 198.37 ± 62.80 minutes: 268.52 ± 137.81 minutes, p value =.02 and 17.54 ± 9.49 minutes: 23.35 ± 15.01 minutes, p value =.03, re-spectively). There was no difference of pain score between the groups.Conclusion: One hour of c-TTM can signifi-cantly decrease the duration of the first and second stages of labor. The pain score recorded is not statistically different between the groups.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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.
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".