Comparison of the effectiveness of transverse friction massage and thiele massage in female patients with chronic pelvic pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim: This study aimed to investigate and compare the effectiveness of transverse friction massage and Thiele massage applied to the pelvic floor muscles in female patients with chronic pelvic pain.Material and Methods: Twenty patients were divided into two groups of 10 people each: the transverse friction group and the Thiele massage group. Patients received transverse friction massage or Thiele Massage 2 days a week for 4 weeks. Measured parameters were pain, quality of life, sexual functions, and lower urinary tract symptoms. Visual Analog Scale and Mcgill Melzack Pain Questionnaire, Nottingham Health Profile, Female Sexual Function Index, and Bristol Female Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Questionnaire were used to evaluate parameters, respectively.Results: Statistically significant improvements were observed in all parameters in the transverse friction massage group (p<0.05) and all parameters except sexual functions improved significantly in the Thiele group compared to pre-treatment (p<0.05). When the two groups were compared with each other, no statistically significant difference was found in any of the parameters between the groups (p>0.05).Discussion: Transverse friction massage and Thiele massage applied to the pelvic floor muscles in patients with chronic pelvic pain are easily applicable noninvasive treatment methods that can reduce the symptoms of the disease and increase the quality of life.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".