Comparison of the Therapeutic Effects of One-Shot Electroacupuncture and Surface Electroacupuncture in Cervical Pain Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to investigate the therapeutic effects of one-shot electroacu-puncture (EA) versus one-shot surface electroacupuncture (SEA) in cervical pain patients. A total of 51 patients were recruited in this randomized control study. Control group (n=13) received medication only. EA group (n=21) received medication plus one-shot of EA.SEA group (n=17) received medication plus one-shot of SEA. Therapeutic effects were measured by Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), body surface score, pain pressure threshold and Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale. The therapeutic effects were shown immediately after the one-shot treatment in both the EA group and the SEA group. In the EA group, the VAS improved 1.99 (p＜0.0001), and body surface score was improved 3.52 (p＜0.001). In the SEA group, the VAS was improved 1.70 (p＜0.0001), and body surface score was improved 1.96 (p＜0.005) as well. One week after the treatment, the VAS value in the EA group was improved 2.71 (p＜0.0001), whereas the VAS value in the SEA group was improved 2.67 (p＜0.0001). The pain surface scores in all three groups had decreased significantly after treatment, but no significant difference was found. Quebec back pain disability scale was improved 10.0 (p＜0.005) in the EA group, and was improved 12.4 (p＜0.005) in the SEA group 3 days after treatment. One week after treatment, the improved scales were shown with 18.6 (p＜0.0005), 22.7 (p＜0.005) respectively in the EA group and the SEA group. The improvements were not shown with significant difference between the two groups. Our conclusion is that one-shot treatment of both EA and SEA is effective for pain relief and functional disability improvement in cervical pain patients. Therefore, one-shot SEA treatment is more advised due to the rarity of side effect and the convenience of application.
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 | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".