Acupuncture with or without acupoint application for primary dysmenorrhea: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Dysmenorrhea is the most common gynaecological symptom reported by women. Ninety percent of women presenting for primary care experience some menstrual pain. Population surveys suggest that, although prevalence rates vary considerably by geographic al location, complaints of dysmenorrhea are widespread in diverse populations. This study will evaluate the results of randomized controlled trials to determine the efficacy and safety of acupuncture with or without acupoint application for the treatment of dysmenorrhea. Methods Eight databases, including China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese Scientific Journal Database, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, MEDLINE, PubMed, Wanfang Database, and Web of Science, will be searched using English and Chinese search strategies. In addition, manual retrieval of research papers, conference papers, ongoing experiments, and internal reports, among others, will supplement electronic retrieval. All eligible studies published on or before December 12, 2021 will be selected. To enhance the effectiveness of the study, only clinical randomized controlled trials related to the use of acupuncture with or without acupoint application for the treatment of dysmenorrhea will be included. Analysis The Visual Analog Scale will be the primary outcome measure, whereas the McGill pain questionnaire, SF-36 Scale, Self-Rating Anxiety, and Self-Rating Depression scale will be the secondary outcomes. Side effects and adverse events will be included as safety evaluations. To ensure the quality of the systematic evaluation, study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment will be independently performed by two authors, and a third author will resolve any disagreement. Ethics and dissemination This systematic review will evaluate the efficacy and safety of acupuncture with or without acupoint application for the treatment of dysmenorrhea. Since all included data will be obtained from published articles, it does not require ethical approval and will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. INPLASY registration number INPLASY202230051.
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 | 0.059 | 0.072 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.026 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.077 | 0.008 |
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".