Non-pharmacological pain-relieving treatment in pregnant women with dorsopathies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study assesses the effectiveness of the relief of pain syndrome in pregnant women with dorsopathies by using an isometric kinesitherapy complex. The analyzed groups differed in the type of the performed exercise, with the first group attending a course of isometric kinesitherapy procedures (group 1) or the second group undertaking a course of therapeutic gymnastics in pregnant women with dorsopathies. The duration of each course was 7.5 hours (3 times a week for a period of 5 weeks, a total of 15 procedures), classes were conducted under the supervision by a doctor of therapeutic physical training. 170 pregnant women were examined with the average age of: Me = 31 (LQ = 26; UQ = 38) years (р > 0.05 between the groups). The low back pain (LBP) was assessed using the Oswestry questionnaire, the EuroQol 5-D questionnaire, the visual analogue scale (VAS), the verbal rating scale, the McGill short questionnaire and a medico-social form. The level of disability was assessed by using the results of the Oswestry questionnaire. Completing the questionnaires and the scales was made before the first kinesitherapy procedure (a complex of isometric exercises) and therapeutic gymnastics and completing it again after the last procedure, respectively. A prospective non-randomized controlled study was conducted in which p = 0.05 was taken as the value of statistical significance level for this study (p). The data analysis yielded statistically significant results confirming the effectiveness of the complex of isometric exercises aiming at relieving the pain in pregnant women with dorsopathies. In group 1, a decrease of the low back pain (LBP) was detected 2.47 times more often than in group 2 with p = 0.001.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".