MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401935570 · doi:10.1097/hnp.0000000000000695

Effectiveness of Auricular Acupressure on Improving Pain and Heart Rate Variability in Patients After Cervical Spine Surgery

2024· article· en· W4401935570 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ying-Yin Liu, Tsui‐Wei Chien, Chin-Ching Li

Bibliographic record

VenueHolistic Nursing Practice · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcupuncture Treatment Research Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAcupressureMedicineHeart rateAnesthesiaSurgeryCervical spineHeart rate variabilityPhysical therapyBlood pressureInternal medicineAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cervical spine surgery is a common neurosurgical procedure; however, postoperative pain remains a problem. This study aimed to examine the effectiveness of auricular acupressure, which is considered a noninvasive, convenient, and safe method for pain reduction and heart rate variability in patients after surgery. A total of 62 patients who underwent cervical spine surgery were randomly divided into experimental (32 patients) and control (30 patients) groups. Both groups received routine care, whereas the experimental group received auricular acupressure three times a day for four days. The Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire was administered, and heart rate variability measurements were obtained on the first, second, third, and fourth postoperative days. The results indicated that auricular acupressure was effective in reducing pain ( P < .05) and improving heart rate variability ( P < .05) in patients. Based on the findings, this study suggests that auricular acupressure can be used as a complementary treatment to reduce pain in patients after cervical spine surgery.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.326 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHolistic Nursing PracticeSame topicAcupuncture Treatment Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207