MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3093172195 · doi:10.1089/acm.2020.0307

Electroacupuncture May Improve Burning and Electric Shock-Like Neuropathic Pain: A Prospective Exploratory Pilot Study

2020· article· en· W3093172195 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Seunghoon Lee, Chang-Soon Lee, Jee Youn Moon, Hyun-Gul Song, Yongjae Yoo, Jihye Kim, Hye-Jin Seo, Sang Hoon Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcupuncture Treatment Research Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMcGill Pain QuestionnaireNeuropathic painBrief Pain InventoryPhysical therapyAcupunctureElectroacupunctureMoodAdverse effectProspective cohort studyAnesthesiaChronic painVisual analogue scaleInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: To test the effectiveness of electroacupuncture (EA) for managing intractable neuropathic pain (NeP) and assess the protocol for a larger confirmatory trial. Design: A prospective, multicenter, single-armed, add-on, pilot study. Settings/location: At two tertiary university-based hospitals in Seoul, Republic of Korea. Subjects: Patients with chronic peripheral NeP, who have received conventional oral medications but complained of moderate to severe pain. Interventions: Two Korean medicine doctors conducted 12 sessions of EA (2 sessions per week for 4 weeks, followed by 1 session per week for the second month) in addition to conventional treatment. Outcome measures: During the 8-week treatment period, pain intensity, pain natures such as burning, electric shock-like, temperature or mechanical hyperalgesia, and numbness, Short Form of the McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ) and the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI-SF), the EuroQol five dimensions questionnaire, patients' satisfaction, and adverse events were evaluated. The primary endpoint was a change in pain intensity (%) at 4 weeks from the baseline. Results: Among 22 patients, 19 finished the protocol. The eight EA sessions over a month reduced pain intensity from 6.0 ± 1.6 at baseline to 3.2 ± 0.9 at 4 weeks, which was a 46.7% reduction (p < 0.001). The incidences of severe burning, electric shock-like pain, and mechanical hyperalgesia reduced at 8 weeks [36%–16% (p = 0.04), 53%–21% (p = 0.009), and 53%–26% (p = 0.03), respectively]. The affective dimensions in the SF-MPQ (p = 0.007) and the pain interference parameters, including mood (p = 0.02), relations with other people (p = 0.03), and enjoyment of life (p = 0.002) in the BPI-SF, were improved at 4 and 8 weeks. The majority of patients (68%) responded that their pain was “much or somewhat improved.” Overall, 84.2% expressed “satisfaction” with their multidisciplinary management. Conclusions: EA might decrease the intensity of NeP, in particular, such as burning, electric shock-like pain, and mechanical hyperalgesia, which was accompanied by psychosocial and functional improvement. A larger study is warranted to prove the effectiveness of EA for managing refractory NeP. Trial registration:ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03315598. Retrospectively registered on October 20, 2017.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.063
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 designNon-randomized 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

Citations13
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Alternative and Complementary MedicineSame topicAcupuncture Treatment Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207