Reflex therapy in patients with chronic tension-type headaches: Effectiveness via sensory and affective Mcgill pain questionnaire descriptors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Tension-type headaches is the most common type of headache among adults and it rises a challenge in findig an effective and safe treatment method. Objectives The study aims to evaluate the corporal acupuncture therapy efficacy in patients with chronic tension-type headaches undergoing a complex treatment plan. Methods The study involved 132 patients (74% female and 26% men) aged 18-65 years, who were divided into two groups. Patients reported their pain lasted 0.4-12 years. All the patients received conventional treatment (central muscle relaxants and antidepressants). The study group additionally received classical corporal acupuncture 3 times per week, a course of 12 sessions. Treatment effectiveness was evaluated by measuring pain intensity using a subjective visual analogue scale (VAS) and McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ). Results Most of the patients (79% and 88% of study and control groups respectively) demonstrated moderate cervical musculoskeletal dysfunctions. At admission pain intensity was 4.2±1.5 and 3.8±1.7 VAS points in the control and study groups respectively, MPQ sensory rank pain index (RPI) was 5.92±1.49 points, affective RPI 3.41±0.84, the total RPI – 7.12±2.56 in the control group, and 6.22±1.74; 2.98±0.62 and 7.14±1.65 points in the study group. 4 weeks after treatment measurements showed following pain intensity changes: 4.21±0.74 vs 3.1±0.95 points in the control and study groups respectively. 3- and 6-month period revealed 3.1±0.57, 2.4±0.74 points and 2.1±0.62, 1.1±0.49 points in the control and study groups respectively. Conclusions Classical corporal acupuncture course may benefit chronic tension-type headaches patients providing an effective treatment in a safe way. Disclosure No significant relationships.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".