MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3097567814 · doi:10.34024/rnc.2020.v28.10444

Immediate effect of foot reflexology in patients with diabetic neuropathy -Randomized Clinical Trial

2020· article· en· W3097567814 on OpenAlexaff
Larissa de Fátima Megda, Andréia Maria Silva, Jéssica Beatriz de Matos, Larissa de Melo Taveira, Beatriz Bertolaccini Martínez, Rita de Cássia Pereira, Sidney Benedito Silva, Luciana Maria dos Reis, Carolina Kosour, Adriana Teresa Silva Santos

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista Neurociências · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPain Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsDiscovery Air (Canada)
FundersFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de Minas Gerais
KeywordsMedicineElectromyographyRandomized controlled trialDiabetes mellitusFoot (prosody)Balance (ability)Diabetic footPhysical therapyDiabetic neuropathyReflexologyType 2 diabetesPhysical medicine and rehabilitationType 2 Diabetes MellitusPeripheral neuropathyInternal medicineMassageEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction. Diabetic neuropathy (DN) is one of the most frequent chronic complications of type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM2). One technique capable of influencing the central and peripheral nervous system is foot reflexology (FR). Therefore, the objective of this study was to analyze the immediate effect of FR in DN type 2 patients. Method. This was a randomized controlled clinical trial, with 12 participants selected from a list of diabetic patients from the Basic Health Units of the city of Alfenas-MG. The sample consisted of two groups: Control Group (n=5) and Intervention Group (n=7). The instruments used were: surface electromyography for analysis of the lateral and medial gastrocnemius muscles, baropodometry to evaluate the balance from the variables of mean pressure and mass division, and the cardiofrequency meter to analyze the relationship between the sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous system and cardiovascular stress. Statistical analysis was used the Shapiro-Wilk test and later the independent t test and Mann Whitney for intergroup comparison. Results. There was only a difference in the EMG of the right lateral gastrocnemius muscle (p=0.04). Conclusion. It was concluded that FR was able to generate response in muscle electrical activity, besides influencing the balance of DN2 patients.

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)0.004
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: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.094
Threshold uncertainty score0.664

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.287 · 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

Citations5
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevista NeurociênciasSame topicPain Mechanisms and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207