Effectiveness of Physical Therapy Combined with Electro Stimulation for Patients with Lumbar Part Disc Herniation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. The aim of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness of physiotherapy combined with electro stimulation, for patients with spinal disc herniation in lumbar part.Methods. The study involved 38 people, 18 men and 20 women. The average age of all subjects was 29.84 ± 4.65 years. All subjects participated in the study for eight weeks, 30–45 minutes, three times a week. They were randomly divided in to three groups: two experimental and one control group. The first experimental group (12 people) participated in physical therapy combined with electro stimulation; the second experimental group (14 people) participated in physical therapy combined with placebo (fake) electro stimulation, and the third (control) group (12 people) participated in physical therapy treatments. All groups before and after the treatment performed trunk (flexor, extensor, lateral musculature) muscular endurance tests (McGill), analogue pain scale evaluation, and SF – 36 questionnaire.Results. After eight weeks of physical therapy combined with electro stimulation average numbers of analogue pain scale results decreased statistically significantly by 2.17 ± 1.11 (p < .05), trunk extensors (33.00 ± 12.78), flexors (31.67 ± 9.15) and lateral left (20.25 ± 2.80) / right (19.50 ± 3.71) musculature differences were statistically significant (p < .05). Physical therapy and placebo (fake) electro stimulation group and physical therapy group did not show statistical significance for all the tests except for analogue pain scale test (1.29 ± 0.83 and 1.92 ± 1.08).Conclusion. Physical therapy combined with electro stimulation applied for eight weeks for 25–39-year-old adults suffering from lumbar part disc herniation is an effective way to enhance trunk flexors, extensors, right/left lateral muscular endurance and reducing lumbar part back pain.Keywords: muscles, electro stimulation, physiotherapy, placebo
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".