Effect of Regular Electrotherapy on Spinal Flexibility and Pain Sensitivity in Patients with Chronic Non-Specific Neck Pain and Low Back Pain: A Randomized Controlled Double-Blinded Pilot Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Objectives: Chronic neck pain and low back pain are common conditions in high-income countries leading to social and medical problems such as invalidity and decreased quality of life. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of supra-threshold electrotherapy on pain level, subjective feeling of disability, and spinal mobility in patients with chronic pain in the spinal cord. Materials and Methods: 11 men and 24 women with a mean age of 49 years were randomly divided into three groups: group 1, “therapy”: supra-threshold electrotherapy was applied on the whole back after electrical calibration; group 2, “control”: electrical calibration without successive electrotherapy; group 3, “control of control”: no stimulation. Sessions were performed once a week and six times in total, each lasting 30 min. The numeric pain rating scale (NRS), cervical and lumbar range of motion (ROM), as well as disability in daily live were investigated before and after the sessions using questionnaires (Neck Disability Index, Roland Morris Questionnaire, Short-form Mc Gill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ)). Results: Spinal mobility improved significantly in the lumbar anteflexion (baseline mean, 20.34 ± SD 1.46; post session mean, 21.43 ± SD 1.95; p = 0.003) and retroflexion (baseline mean, 13.68 ± SD 1.46; post session mean, 12.05 ± SD 1.37; p = 0.006) in the group receiving electrotherapy. Pain levels measured by the NRS and disability-questionnaire scores did not differ significantly before and after treatment in any of the groups. Conclusions: Our data indicate that regular supra-threshold electrotherapy for six times has a positive effect on lumbar flexibility in chronic neck pain and low back pain patients, whereas pain sensation or subjective feeling of disability remained unchanged.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".