Myofascial Pain Syndrome Focused on the Upper Trapezius Muscle: A Comparative Randomized Controlled Trial of the Court-Type Traditional Thai Massage versus the Thai Hermit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Myofascial pain syndrome is a common problem that can develop at any age. This study compares the efficacy of the court-type traditional Thai massage (CTTM) to the Thai hermit exercise (THE) in improving the cervical range of motion (CROM) and reducing pain in the upper trapezius muscle. In this study, 46 patient subjects were randomized into 2 groups, with 1 group administered CTTM and the other administered THE. Prior to and following the experiment, their demographic characteristics, pain levels and CROM were measured using a visual analog scale (VAS) and a goniometer, respectively. Data was then analyzed using descriptive statistics, percentage, mean, and standard deviation, as well as inferential statistics. The findings indicate that subjects in both groups demonstrated significantly lower pain and significantly better CROM (P < 0.05). In terms of comparative treatment between the CTTM and THE groups, the results were not found to differ in the range of motion, but a clear difference in pain level measured by VAS was found, in which CTTM provides a better way of reducing pain at the trigger point than THE (P < 0.05). From the findings, it can be concluded that both CTTM and THE are comparably efficacious therapies for myofascial pain in the 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".