Acupuncture and Reflexology for Patients Undergoing Chemotherapy: A Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Around three quarters of individuals undergoing chemotherapy self-report multiple symptoms. There is clinical trial evidence of effectiveness for acupuncture for commonly experienced symptoms, and emerging evidence for reflexology, but little is known about the effects of these therapies on multiple symptoms when implemented in a real world setting during active chemotherapy treatment. METHODS: This was a cohort study of participants receiving reflexology and/or acupuncture while attending chemotherapy. Participants received a 20 minute reflexology treatment or a 20 minute acupuncture treatment or a combination of both. Patient reported outcome measures were administered before and after the treatment using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS). RESULTS: During the study period, 330 unique patients received a total of 809 acupuncture and/or reflexology treatments. Participants had, on average, 5.3 symptoms each which they reported as moderate to severe (≥4/10) using the ESAS at baseline. Following treatment, participants reported 3.2 symptoms as moderate to severe. The symptom change for all participant encounters receiving any therapy was statistically significant for all symptoms, and clinically significant (a reduction of more than 1) for all symptoms except financial distress, appetite, and memory. Clinically significant levels of global distress (<3) were reduced in 72% of all participants receiving either therapy. No adverse events were recorded. CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate that acupuncture and reflexology administered alongside chemotherapy may reduce patient reported symptom burden and patient global symptom related distress. Future research would include an active control group, and consider confounding factors such as chemotherapy stage and medication.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".