Effects of reflexology on pain in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This systematic review was conducted to investigate the impact of reflexology on pain management in individuals diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis. A comprehensive search was executed on international electronic databases, including Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science, and Iranian electronic library including Iranmedex and Scientific Information Database, covering the earliest available data up to January 25, 2024. The search employed keywords derived from Medical Subject Headings such as "reflexology", "pain", and "rheumatoid arthritis". The quality assessment of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted using the Joanna Briggs Institute's (JBI) critical assessment checklist. A total of four studies, encompassing 206 participants, were included in the review. Notably, 70.97% of the enrolled patients were female, with 61.17% assigned to the intervention group. The mean age of participants was 50.06 (standard deviation [SD]=8.48) years. The average study duration and follow-up period were approximately 25 and 5 weeks, respectively, with an intervention duration averaging 40 minutes. In three studies interventions were effective in decreasing pain of patients with rheumatoid arthritis. However, in one study, the intervention was not effective in decreasing pain of patients with rheumatoid arthritis. The findings indicated that health professionals, including nurses, can effectively employ reflexology as a means to alleviate pain in individuals with rheumatoid arthritis. Consequently, it is recommended that healthcare managers and policymakers create an enabling environment within hospitals, facilitating the integration of reflexology into patient care protocols. This strategic approach holds the potential for reducing the pain experienced by patients afflicted with rheumatoid arthritis.
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 | 0.010 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".