MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4362468617 · doi:10.3390/healthcare11070991

Substantiating the Therapeutic Effects of Simultaneous Heat Massage Combined with Conventional Physical Therapy for Treatment of Lower Back Pain: A Randomized Controlled Feasibility Trial

2023· article· en· W4362468617 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tae‐Hwan Kim, Soon-Kwon Park, Il-Young Cho, Jong Hoo Lee, Hong-Young Jang, Yong‐Soon Yoon

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMassagePhysical therapyMedicineMcGill Pain QuestionnaireRandomized controlled trialOswestry Disability IndexLow back painBeck Depression InventoryBrief Pain InventoryVisual analogue scaleChronic painInternal medicineAnxiety

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.309 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
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

Citations9
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcareSame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207