Analgesic Effect of Electroacupuncture on Postherpetic Neuralgia: A Trial Protocol for a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The chronic neuropathic pain associated with postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) can last for several months or even many years, seriously affecting the affected person's work, sleep, mood, and daily life activities. In generaly, current treatments for PHN are at best limited and unsatisfactory, and adverse reactions are common, especially in elderly patients. Electroacupuncture (EA) is widely used clinically to manage painful diseases, but there remains a lack of evidence to support the effectiveness of EA on PHN. This study is designed to assess the efficacy and safety of EA on PHN, and to provide evidence-based medical evidence for EA treatment of PHN. METHODS: This multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled trial will recruit 448 patients with PHN at seven clinical centers. Multicenter stratified variable block randomization will be used, and the eligible patients will be randomly allocated in a ratio of 1:1 to the EA group or sham EA group. The EA group will receive 4 weeks of EA treatment, given as 30-min treatment sessions, once daily, 5 times per week, for a total of 20 treatments; the sham EA group will receive sham EA treatment under the same conditions. PLANNED OUTCOMES: The primary outcome measure is the 11-point Numeric Rating Scale pain score at week 4. The secondary outcome measures, including mechanical pain threshold, pain area of PHN, average number of pain episodes, the short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire 2, Zoster Brief Pain Inventory, the Depression, Anxiety, and Positive Outlook Scale, Patient Global Impression of Change, safety of EA, and use of concomitant medications, among others. The primary analysis of the outcomes will be the mixed-effect model with repeated measurement between groups on an intent-to-treat population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT04560361. Registered 23 September 2020 ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04560361?term=NCT04560361&draw=2&rank=1 ).
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".