Effects of Intramuscular Stimulation in Myofascial Pain Syndrome of Upper Trapezius Muscle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: This study was conducted to assess effects of intramuscular stimulation (IMS) in comparison with that of dry needling and intramuscular electrical stimulation (IMES) in the patients with myofascial pain syndrome (MPS) of upper trapezius. Method: Thirty patients with MPS were assigned randomly to three groups, such as dry needling group (n=10), IMES group (n=10), and IMS group (n=10). In dry needling group, dry needling was applied to the trigger point of upper trapezius muscle. In IMES group, IMES was applied to the trigger point of upper trapezius muscle. In IMS group, IMS was applied to the trigger point of upper trapezius and parcervical muscles. Treatment were done three times a week for 2 weeks. Effects were assessed on 3rd day, 7th day and 14th day after treatment by visual analogue scale (VAS), McGill pain questionnaire (MPQ), and passive range of motion (PROM) of cervical spine. Results: Significant changes of VAS and PROM were noticed in IMS group, compared with other groups. No significant difference of MPQ was noticed in IMS group, compared with other groups. Conclusion: IMS may be more effective treatment modality than dry needling and IMES in patients with MPS of upper trapezius muscle.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".