The effect of hot intermittent cupping on pain, stiffness and disability of patients with knee osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of hot intermittent cupping on pain, stiffness and inability of patients with knee osteoarthritis (KO). Methods: The present study was a clinical trial, which was performed on 38 patients with KO referring to Gonabad Rheumatology Specialty Clinic. Based on permutation block method, the research units were divided into cupping therapy and control groups. For the cupping therapy group, four sessions of cupping therapy were performed every four days. To collect data, the form of demographic information, Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and the Western Ontario and McMaster (WOMAC) osteoarthritis scale were used, and the data were analyzed by SPSS software v. 16 using descriptive statistics and independent t-test, paired t-test, Chi-square test and Fishers exact test with a significance level of P < 0.05. Results: Findings showed that there was no significant difference between the cupping therapy and control groups in terms of demographic characteristics and they were homogeneous. Findings indicated that, based on VAS, the mean pain intensity in the left (P < 0.001) and the right knees (P < 0.001), as well as based on WOMAC, stiffness (P = 0.006), pain intensity (P < 0.001) and disability (P < 0.001) in the cupping therapy group significantly decreased compared to the control group. Conclusion: Findings showed that hot intermittent cupping therapy reduced the pain intensity, stiffness and disability in patients with KO.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".