Effect of craniosacral therapy on the intensity of chronic back pain of nurses: A randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background & Aim: Chronic low back pain is a common disease among nurses. According to the literature, complementary medicine can reduce low back pain, one of which is craniosacral therapy. This study was designed to investigate the effect of craniosacral therapy on the intensity of chronic back pain of nurses. Methods & Materials: This randomized clinical trial study was conducted on 60 nurses with chronic back pain. The participants were randomly assigned into intervention and control groups. The intervention group’s participants received eight individual sessions of craniosacral therapy. In the control group, a light-touch in the lumbar region was performed as a placebo. The therapist met each participant separately in a private room of the hospital. The two groups completed the McGill Pain Questionnaire at the baseline, immediately after the intervention, and one month after the intervention. The collected data was analyzed in SPSS (v.16) using descriptive and analytical tests such as t-test, Chi-Square, ANCOVA, and repeated measures ANOVA. Results: The ANCOVA test results showed a significant difference between the two groups’ mean scores of pain intensity and its subscales (P<0.05). The results of repeated measures ANOVA showed that the mean scores of pain intensity and its subscales (sensory, affective, pain evaluation, and miscellaneous) decreased over the three time points in the intervention group (P<0.05). Conclusion: The findings affirmed the positive effects of the craniosacral therapy on the intensity of pain in nurses with chronic back pain. Therefore, it is recommended that this approach be performed as a complementary, effective, non-invasive intervention to decrease chronic back pain.
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 | 0.012 | 0.042 |
| 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".