Comparison of the Effect of Stretching Exercises and Combination of Massage - Stretching Exercises on Primary Dysmenorrhea of Female Students of Razi University of Kermanshah
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Primary dysmenorrhea is chronic pain during menstruation without the presence of a pelvic pathologic complication. Objectives: The aim this research was comparison of the effect of stretching exercises and combination of massage - stretching exercises on primary dysmenorrhea of female students of Razi University of Kermanshah. Methods: This semi-experimental study was statistical population all female students of Razi University of Kermanshah. 90 students were selected through purposive and convenient sampling method. After obtaining consent and justification of the subjects from the research stages, they were randomly divided into three groups of 30 to practice the protocol. The research instrument consisted of two primary dysmenorrhea and McGill pain questionnaires as well as stretching exercise and massage protocol. The validity of the questionnaires was obtained formally using Cronbach's test. Exercise program for groups was performed in 8 sessions for 3 weeks. Data were analyzed by dependent t-test, one-way ANOVA and Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, to check the normality of the data distribution. Results: The results showed that there were significant differences between the three methods of exercise (stretching, massage and massage- stretching movements) on pain severity (P = 0.938), duration of pain (P = 0.095) and the nature of pain (P = 0.664) There was no significant difference. Conclusions: According to the results of the present study, massage and stretching exercise and massage-stretching combinations are almost as effective and effective as noninvasive methods in reducing the symptoms of sensory pain caused by primary dysmenorrhea. Assistance to girls with dysmenorrhea Selection and application of one of these methods will depend on the individual's abilities and circumstances.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".