MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3089162714 · doi:10.36076/ppj.2020/23/507

Ashi Acupuncture Versus Local Anesthetic TriggerPoint Injections in the Treatment of AbdominalMyofascial Pain Syndrome: A RandomizedClinical Trial

2020· article· en· W3089162714 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Júlio César Rosa e Silva

Bibliographic record

VenuePain Physician · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMyofascial pain diagnosis and treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineVisual analogue scaleRandomized controlled trialMcGill Pain QuestionnaireMyofascial pain syndromeLocal anestheticAcupunctureAnesthesiaAbdomenSurgeryPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Chronic pelvic pain (CPP) is defined as recurrent or continuous pain in the lower abdomen or pelvis, non-menstrual or non-cyclic, lasting at least 6 months. There is strong evidence that up to 85% of patients with CPP have serious dysfunction of the musculoskeletal system, including abdominal myofascial syndrome (AMPS). AMPS is characterized as deep abdominal pain, originating from hyperirritable trigger points, usually located within a musculoskeletal range or its fascia of coating. In the literature, there are few studies that address AMPS. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the responses of ashi acupuncture treatment and local anesthetic injection in the treatment of chronic pelvic pain secondary to abdominal myofascial pain syndrome in women. STUDY DESIGN: Randomized controlled clinical trial. SETTING: Tertiary University Hospital. METHODS: Women with a clinical diagnosis of CPP secondary to AMPS were randomized and evaluated using instruments to assess clinical pain, namely, the visual analogue scale (VAS), numerical categorial scale (NCS), and the McGill Questionnaire, after receiving treatment with ashi acupuncture (group A, n = 16) or local anesthetic injections (group B, n = 19). They were reevaluated after one week and one, 3, and 6 months after each treatment, in addition to assessments of pain and adverse events performed during the sessions. RESULTS: Ashi acupuncture and local anesthetic injections were both effective in reducing clinical pain assessed through the analyzed variables among study participants. There was no difference between the groups and there was a strong correlation between these pain assessment instruments. LIMITATIONS: The absence of blinding to the different forms of treatment among the patients and the researcher directly involved in the treatment, the absence of a placebo group, the selective exclusion of women with comorbidities and other causes of CPP, and the difference between the number of sessions used for each technique. CONCLUSION: Treatments with ashi acupuncture and local anesthetic injections were effective in reducing clinical pain in women with abdominal myofascial pain syndrome.

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 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)0.001
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: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.510
Threshold uncertainty score0.732

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
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

Citations16
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePain PhysicianSame topicMyofascial pain diagnosis and treatmentFrench-language works237,207