MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4226136316 · doi:10.4103/jehp.jehp_296_21

A comparative study into the effects of topical hot salt and hot sand on patients' perception of low back pain

2022· article· en· W4226136316 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Shahram Etemadifar, Morteza Dehghan, Tahereh Jazayeri, Raheleh Javanbakhtian, Leili Rabiei, Reza Masoudi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Education and Health Promotion · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicTherapeutic Uses of Natural Elements
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePhysical therapyLow back painPsychological interventionIntervention (counseling)Orthopedic surgerySurgeryAlternative medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) has been regarded as one of the musculoskeletal problems which is affecting more than three-quarters of individuals in their lifetime. Nowadays, various pharmacological and nonpharmacological therapies are employed for relieving and treating LBP. This study was conducted to compare the effects of topical hot salt and hot sand on patients' perception of LBP. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this, quasi-experimental study patients with LBP referring to the orthopedic clinic of Shahrekord educational hospital were divided randomly into two interventions and one control group in 2020. All three groups were received naproxen cream and daily physiotherapy in the same manner, the interventional groups in addition either topical hot salt or topical hot sand. Data gathering tool for measuring patients' perception of LBP was the McGill Pain Short Form Questionnaire to be completed at the beginning, immediately at the end, and 2 months after the intervention. The data were analyzed using SPSS statistical software (version 21.0). RESULTS: Totally, 90 patients were randomized based on the table of random numbers (mean age 51.1 + 11.1), and finally, 87 patients completed the study. Patients' perception of LBP before the intervention was homogenous in hot salt, hot sand, and the control group The mean score of total pain experience before the intervention was 14.1 ± 11.3 for hot sand, 13.9 ± 10.7 for hot salt and 13.7 ± 10.1 for control group The mean scores of these three groups were not significant before the intervention ( P > 0.05). The mean score of total pain experience immediately after the intervention was 6.7 ± 4.2 for hot sand, 5.2 ± 3.1 for hot salt and 13.9 ± 9.8 for control group. The mean scores of the hot sand group and the hot salt group were significantly decreased compared with control group ( P > 0.05). The mean score of total pain experience two months after the intervention was 5.6 ± 3.27 for hot sand, 4.21 ± 2.14 for hot salt and 13.8 ± 10.4 for control group. Mean score of total pain experience in both intervention groups had significantly reduced two months after the intervention compared to control group ( P ≤ 0.001); so that the effect of hot salt treatment on reducing total pain experience was larger than hot sand ( P ≤ 0.001). The same trend was observed for VAS and Present pain intensity variables. CONCLUSIONS: The findings have revealed that the topical treatments with hot salt and hot sand could have a significant effect on the perception of LBP compared to those in the control group; whereas hot salt might be stronger effects than hot sand on reducing LBP.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.471
Threshold uncertainty score0.352

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.478
Teacher spread0.397 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Education and Health PromotionSame topicTherapeutic Uses of Natural ElementsFrench-language works237,207