Ultrassom terapêutico e injeção de anestésico local no tratamento de mulheres com dor pélvica crônica secundária à síndrome miofascial abdominal: ensaio clínico randomizado
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Chronic pelvic pain (CPP) is defined as recurrent or continuous pain in the lower abdomen or pelvis, non-menstrual or non-cyclical, lasting at least six months.There is strong evidence that up to 85% of patients with CPP have serious dysfunctions of the musculoskeletal system, including abdominal myofascial pain syndrome (AMPS).AMPS is characterized as intense and deep abdominal pain, originated by hyper-irritable trigger points, usually located within a musculoskeletal band or its lining fascia.There are few studies in the literature that address AMPS.Objectives: To evaluate and compare the efficacy of therapeutic ultrasound and injection of local anesthetic in improving pain in women with abdominal myofascial syndrome secondary to chronic pelvic pain.Materials and methods: A randomized clinical trial was conducted, where patients are allocated to two types of treatment, Group A: therapeutic ultrasound (TUS) and Group B: injection of local anesthetic (IA).The instruments that were used for assessment and reevaluation are the Visual Analog Pain Scale (VAS), Numerical Categorical Pain Scale (NCS), McGill Pain Scale and the SF-36 quality of life assessment questionnaire.Results: In the VAS, the TUS group started the treatment with an average of pain 7.22 and ended the treatment with an average of 4.33, the group IA started the treatment with an average of pain 6.70 and ended the treatment with an average of 3,68.Therapeutic ultrasound and injection of local anesthetic were effective in reducing clinical pain and improving quality of life through the variables analyzed among study participants.There was no difference between groups.Conclusion: Treatment with therapeutic ultrasound and injection of local anesthetic were effective in reducing clinical pain and improving quality of life in women with SMFA secondary to CPP.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".