MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4313051264 · doi:10.5604/01.3001.0015.9814

Effectiveness of Local Cryotherapy Treatment with the Use of Carbon Dioxide and Liquid Nitrogen Among Patients with Low Back Pain Syndrome

2022· article· en· W4313051264 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jagoda Chmiel, Grażyna Guzy

Bibliographic record

VenueRehabilitacja Medyczna · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMyofascial pain diagnosis and treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCryotherapyPhysical therapyMcGill Pain QuestionnaireMedicineRating scaleQuality of life (healthcare)Visual analogue scalePsychologySurgeryNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Low back pain syndromes (LBPS) are common. One of the methods of treating LBPS is local cryotherapy, which can be based on various cooling substances. In the available literature, it is suggested that effective cold treatment may depend on the type and temperature of the cooling substance used. Research objective: The aim of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness of 2 local cryotherapy (Carbon Dioxide and Liquid Nitrogen) types among patients with low back pain syndrome (LBPS). Materials and methods: The study included 60 patients diagnosed with chronic LBPS of discopathic origin. Patients were randomised into 2 study groups. Local cryotherapy treatment with Carbon Dioxide was used in the 1st group (G1), while in the 2nd (G2), cryotherapy treatment with applied Liquid Nitrogen. Two measurements were taken, before and after 2 weeks treatment. The following were used for assessment: centralisation of symptoms (Pain Drawings), pain intensity (Numeral Rating Scale), duration of the current pain episode (Quebec Task Force Classification), level of disability (Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire), quality and intensity of subjective pain (McGill Pain Questionnaire), patients’ emotional state (Adjectival Scale for Testing Emotions) and self-efficacy related to pain (Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire). Statistical analysis was performed via the Student’s t-test for dependent and independent samples. Results: In both study groups, the perceived pain was either completely eliminated or centralised to the spine, hip joint and buttock. The level of pain, disability and pain-related self-efficacy decreased significantly, regardless of the therapy used. In terms of these variables, no greater therapeutic efficacy was demonstrated with either cryostimulation treatment. Qualitative assessment of pain and emotions (especially anxiety and anger) decreased significantly in G1 and G2. However, in the nitrogen-treated group, a significantly greater improvement was noted for WOB:OC, anger and anxiety scores (for these variables, the G2 group started from a higher level prior to therapy). Conclusions: Both analysed treatments are equally effective in terms of variables such as: centralisation of symptoms, level of pain intensity, disability, joy, self-efficacy related to pain, as well as the majority of the analysed MPQ indicators. Cryostimulation with liquid nitrogen may be more effective, but only in improving the WOB: OC index of the MPQ questionnaire and the level of anger and anxiety. Nonetheless, the obtained results do not allow for definitive confirmation of these results. The use of both cryostimulation treatment methods may assist in the treatment process of LBPS.

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)0.000
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 score0.159
Threshold uncertainty score0.476

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.187 · 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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRehabilitacja MedycznaSame topicMyofascial pain diagnosis and treatmentFrench-language works237,207