The Effect of Transcutaneous Posterior Tibial Nerve Stimulation on Pain and Quality of Life in Patients with Fibromyalgia: A Single-Blind, Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of posterior tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS) in reducing pain, improving quality of life, and decreasing disease severity in patients with fibromyalgia. This prospective, single-blind, randomized controlled trial included female patients newly diagnosed with fibromyalgia who had started duloxetine treatment (30 mg/day). The patients in the study group received six sessions of posterior tibial nerve stimulation, twice weekly, 3-4 days apart, in addition to duloxetine; the controls received duloxetine only. The patients were evaluated three times (at baseline, 1st month, and 3rd month). Pain was evaluated using a numeric rating scale, the short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire, and quality of life with a 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). Patient functional status and disease severity were evaluated using the fibromyalgia impact questionnaire (FIQ). A total of 64 patients met the inclusion criteria: 22 were ultimately included in the study group and 30 in the control group. Statistical improvements in pain and FIQ scores were observed after treatment in both groups. The SF-36 scores indicated improved vitality only in the 1st month in both groups, with no significant changes in the other quality-of-life subscales in either group. There was no statistical difference between the two groups in terms of changes in pain, FIQ, and SF-36 scores compared with baseline at the 1st month and 3rd month. The addition of PTNS to pharmacological treatment did not contribute to the reduction in pain or improvement in quality of life in fibromyalgia either in the 1st or 3rd month. NIH Clinical Trial Registration Number NCT05937711.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".