Evaluating the Efficacy of Capacitive Resistive Monopolar Radiofrequency Combined With Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation in Managing Chronic Low Back Pain: A Randomised Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: This randomised controlled trial evaluates the effectiveness of capacitive resistive monopolar radiofrequency (CRMRF) combined with proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation (PNF) training in managing chronic low back pain (CLBP). Given the multifactorial nature of CLBP, this study explores a multimodal treatment approach integrating CRMRF, known for its thermal effects and ability to alleviate pain through improved cell metabolism and microcirculation, with PNF training, which enhances muscle strength, flexibility, and proprioception. METHODS: This study was designed as a single-blind, parallel, randomised controlled trial conducted in an outpatient clinical setting. Over the course of four months, 62 participants, suffering from chronic low back pain were randomly assigned to receive either the combined CRMRF and PNF treatment or PNF alone, with primary outcomes measured in terms of pain and functional disability using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). For secondary outcome of disability associated with pain, Quebec Pain Disability Scale (QPDS) and Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) were used. The study's hypothesis was that the combined treatment would reduce pain and disability more effectively than PNF alone. RESULTS: Results indicated that the experimental group experienced greater improvements in pain and functional disability, surpassing the minimally clinically important difference (MCID) for the VAS, ODI, QPDS and RMDQ, suggesting the clinical relevance of the combined CRMRF and PNF approach. DISCUSSION: These findings are consistent with previous research highlighting the benefits of CRMRF in various musculoskeletal disorders and suggest that integrating CRMRF with PNF training offers a promising non-invasive treatment option for CLBP sufferers. Overall, our study contributes to the growing evidence base supporting innovative, multimodal treatment strategies for managing CLBP, with the potential to enhance patients' quality of life. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05682287.
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 | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".