Effectiveness of Cold Spinal Spray on Blood Pressure and Heart Rate Variability in Patients with Hypertension—A Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The application of cold to the spine is documented as favourable for reducing blood pressure in patients with hypertension (HTN). However, hydriatic application in the form of a cold spinal spray (CSS) has not yet been explored.Objective: To find the effectiveness of CSS on cardio autonomic variables among males with HTN. Methods: One hundred male patients with HTN visiting the outpatient service were included in this randomized controlled trial. A single session of CSS (15°C–19°C) was given to 50 patients for a period of 20 minutes for the study group, and the control group was made to lie down on the spinal spray tub for 20 minutes without any intervention. Baseline blood pressure and short-term heart rate variability (HRV) measurements were obtained prior to the intervention, followed by a subsequent assessment after a 20-minute interval for both groups. Results: Following 20 minutes of CSS a significant decrease was observed in systolic blood pressure (136.48±14.15 mmHg to 126.20±13.18 mmHg, p<0.001), diastolic blood pressure (87.96±6.77 mmHg to 84.06±6.84 mmHg, p<0.006), pulse pressure (48.44±11.99 mmHg to 42.08±10.88 mmHg, p<0.007), and mean arterial pressure (104.09±8.12 mmHg to 98.05±7.88 mmHg, p<0.001). No significant changes were noted in HRV variables in either of the two patient groups. Conclusion: The current study findings suggest that a single session of CSS intervention could lower both systolic & diastolic blood pressure, pulse pressure and mean arterial pressure in male hypertensive patients. Further studies are needed to find the long-term effect of CSS among patients with HTN.
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) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".