Substantiating the Therapeutic Effects of Simultaneous Heat Massage Combined with Conventional Physical Therapy for Treatment of Lower Back Pain: A Randomized Controlled Feasibility Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There are various therapeutic options for the conservative management of lower back pain (LBP). A combination of two or more treatment options may be more effective in the clinical management of non-specific LBP. In this study, we compared the effects of simultaneous heat massage with conventional physical therapy in patients with subacute LBP. METHODS: A single-center randomized controlled trial in which 40 participants with LBP were allocated to one of two groups: a heat massage group (HMG) and physical therapy group (PTG). The HMG received simultaneous heat massage therapy using a mechanical device (CGM MB-1401, Ceragem, Republic of Korea). The PTG received conventional physical therapy. Both groups received 40 min of therapy once daily, five times a week, for a total of four weeks. Changes in serum cortisol, epinephrine (EP), and norepinephrine (NE) were assessed. The outcomes were measured using the pain numeric rating scale (PNRS), the Oswestry disability index (ODI), the Roland-Morris disability questionnaire (RMDQ), the short-form McGill pain questionnaire (SF-MPQ), the multidimensional fatigue inventory (MFI-20), the Beck depression inventory (BDI), surface EMG (sEMG), and sympathetic skin response (SSR) at baseline (PRE), at 2 (2 W) and 4 weeks (4 W) following the intervention. RESULTS: The serum EP and NE levels in the HMG decreased after treatment. The PNRS, ODI, RMDQ, and SF-MPQ scores improved without significance in both groups. The BDI score showed improvement in the HMG before the PTG. The MFI-20 score improved in both groups, but the results were better in the HMG than in the PTG at 4 W. All the activities of sEMG were significantly decreased in both groups. However, the improvement of the %MVIC in the HMG was better than that in the PTG at 4 W. The SSR latency on sEMG decreased while the amplitude increased in the HMG at 2 W and 4 W, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Following 4 weeks of combined therapies, heat massage was not superior to conventional physical therapy alone. Both treatments were shown to be effective in improving LBP and pain-related disability. However, heat massage was shown to have a better effect on the control of autonomic nerve function and underlying moods.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".