MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Clinical study of manipulation of Bojin-Guicao combined with external application of Chinese medicine for the lateral epicondylitis

2017· article· en· W3029825366 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lei Wang, Luyi Su, Hongsheng Ge

Bibliographic record

VenueTraditional Chinese Medicine · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHealthcare and Venom Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEpicondylitisMedicineDecoctionTraditional Chinese medicineTennis elbowClinical trialTreatment and control groupsSurgeryTraditional medicineInternal medicineElbowAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives In order to evaluate the clinical effect of manipulation combined with traditional Chinese medicine for the lateral epicondylitis. Methods A total of 150 patients with lateral epicondylitis were randomly divided into two groups, 75 patients in each group. The treatment group received manipulation combined with the TCM herbal bathing decoction, and the control group received the shock wave therapy and TCM herbal bathing decoction. Two groups were treated for 3 months. The SF-McGill scale, VAS, PPI, PRI were measured, and the clinical curative effect rate was assessed after treatment. Results The total effective rate of the treatment group was 92.0% (69/75), and the control group was 80.0% (60/75). There was statistical significant difference between two groups (χ2=8.339, P=0.039). The SF-McGill pain questionnaire scores, after treatment (26.3 ± 9.9 vs. 29.4 ± 8.8, t=-4.183), one month after treatment (20.5 ± 7.7 vs. 25.6 ± 6.9, t=-3.954), and 3 months after treatment (14.4 ± 8.0 vs. 18.3 ± 6.7, t=-4.031) in the treatment group were significantly lower than those in the control group (P<0.05). The VAS scores after treatment (4.9 ± 1.4 vs. 5.8 ± 1.3, t=-4.631), one month after treatment (3.0 ± 1.0 vs. 4.1±1.2, t=-3.752), and three months after treatment (2.3 ± 1.0 vs. 3.0 ± 1.3, t=-4.350) in the treatment group were significantly lower than those in the control group (P<0.05). The PPI score after treatment (2.4 ± 0.6 vs. 3.1 ± 0.5, t=-7.528), one month after treatment (1.8 ± 0.6 vs. 2.5 ± 0.7, t=-6.630), and 3 months after treatment (1.1 ± 0.4 vs. 1.9 ± 0.7, t=-3.425) in the treatment group were significantly lower than those in the control group (P<0.05). The PRI score after treatment (19.5 ± 8.0 vs. 22.3 ± 5.7, t=-3.574), one month after treatment (13.7 ± 4.7 vs. 17.3 ± 5.3, t=-3.985), and three months after treatment (9.3 ± 6.6 vs. 12.5 ± 4.8, t=-1.270) in the treatment group were significantly lower than those in the control group (P<0.05). Conclusions The Manipulation combined with traditional Chinese medicine bathing therapy can relief the symptoms of lateral epicondylitis, and improve the clinical curative effect. Key words: Lateral epicondylitis; Manipulation, osteopathic; Activating blood and relaxing muscle-tendon; External application drugs; Clinical study

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.192
GPT teacher head0.475
Teacher spread0.283 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTraditional Chinese MedicineSame topicHealthcare and Venom ResearchFrench-language works237,207