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 OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.423

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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