MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220911744 · doi:10.1101/2022.03.22.22272750

Acupuncture with or without acupoint application for primary dysmenorrhea: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

2022· review· en· W4220911744 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Xuewei Zhao, Yu Tian, Jinying Zhao, Hailin Jiang, Jiabao Sun, Xiaoyu Zhi, Baiyan Liu, Wu Liu, Yanze Liu, Tie Li, Fuchun Wang

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMenstrual Health and Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAcupunctureMEDLINERandomized controlled trialData extractionAlternative medicineAdverse effectPhysical therapyMeta-analysisProtocol (science)Clinical trialCochrane LibraryAnxietyVisual analogue scaleRating scaleSystematic reviewTraditional Chinese medicinePsychiatryInternal medicinePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.941
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.165
GPT teacher head0.458
Teacher spread0.292 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxivSame topicMenstrual Health and DisordersFrench-language works237,207