A multi-center randomized controlled clinical trial of three-step acupuncture and cupping therapy for cervicogenic headache
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To assess the clinical efficacy and safety of three-step acupuncture and cupping therapy for cervicogenic headache (CEH). Methods: A randomized, single-blind, multi-center, parallel controlled clinical trial was performed, including 63 patients with CEH who met the study criteria. They were randomly divided into treatment (n = 32) and control groups (n = 31). The treatment group was treated with three-step acupuncture and cupping therapy, and the control group was treated with sham acupuncture. The simplified McGill pain scores, comprising three parts: the pain rating index, visual analogue scale score, and present pain intensity, alongside head and neck stiffness and cervical vertebra range of motion, and a safety evaluation were recorded in the two groups before treatment, immediately after the first treatment, after 10 days of treatment, after 20 days of treatment, and 3 months after the end of treatment. Results: Compared with before treatment, the scores at each follow-up time point were significantly improved after treatment; moreover, the treatment group was significantly better than the control group. When the scores at the 3 months follow-up after the end of the treatment were compared with the scores after 20 days of treatment, there were no significant differences in the treatment group while significant differences from the scores of the control group, suggesting that the treatment group had better long-term benefits than the control group. Conclusion: Compared with the sham acupuncture group, the three-step acupuncture and cupping method has a beneficial effect in the treatment of CEH. It provides rapid benefits, has better short- and long-term efficacy than sham acupuncture, and is associated with a low recurrence rate.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".