A twelve‐week, four‐arm, randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, phase 2 prospective clinical trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of an anthroposophic multimodal treatment on chronic pain in outpatients with postpolio syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Chronic pain and fatigue are the main symptoms of postpoliomyelitis syndrome (PPS). This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of an anthroposophic multimodal treatment for chronic pain in PPS outpatients. METHODS: A twelve-week, four-arm, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 prospective clinical trial was designed to compare four groups (n = 48): groups A and B received daily active experimental transdermal gel (ETG) or placebo gel (PTG), respectively; groups C and D received weekly external therapies, art therapies, and neurofunctional reorganization, plus either daily ETG or PTG, respectively. The pain symptoms were evaluated through a visual analogue scale (VAS), the McGill questionnaire, and thermography. Quality of life and resilience were evaluated by the WHOQOL-BREF and Antonovsky sense of coherence questionnaires applied at baseline and after the interventions. RESULTS: No related adverse events occurred, and 10% of the patients reports dysphagia improvement. In the groups C and D, pain reduction was statistically significant in both the placebo group (p = .02, d = 1.315) and in the ETG (p = .005, d = 2.035). However, following the week-to-week evolution of pain with the concomitant use of the ETG, this significant pain reduction occurred earlier from the 4th week and continued to decrease (p = .016, d = 1.369). In the group that received the complete multimodal treatment, the greatest significant benefit in increasing quality of life occurred in the physical domain and elevation in resilience with an emphasis on meaning and comprehension domains. CONCLUSIONS: The anthroposophic multimodal treatment group presented both safety and efficacy as an analgesic in the groups that received the nonpharmacological therapies, much earlier when associated with the ETG. The multimodal approach corresponded to the pattern of better efficacy for both pain reduction and improvement in quality of life and resilience.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".