Clinical efficacy of Tuina therapy combined with traditional Chinese exercises in the treatment of symptomatic lumbar disc herniation: a multicentre randomised controlled trial protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Low back pain and lower extremity sensory and functional abnormalities are common symptoms of lumbar disc herniation (LDH), which can easily cause walking dysfunction and significantly impair the quality of life of patients. Tuina and traditional Chinese exercises (TCEs) are effective in relieving pain and restoring dysfunction, and both are often used in China as a combination of passive therapy and active exercise to ease symptoms in patients with LDH. However, the majority of current clinical trials on the treatment of LDH with Tuina or TCEs are single-centre clinical studies, and the quality of these studies is generally low. Furthermore, clear evidence of clinical efficacy as to whether Tuina combined with TCEs is superior to single TCEs for improving dysfunction and pain in patients with LDH is lacking. Methods/design: The design is a multicentre, assessor-blinded clinical randomised controlled trial. A total of 166 patients with LDH (aged 18-65 years) were recruited from four centres and randomly assigned at a 1:1 ratio to two groups: the TCE group and the Tuina combined with the TCE group. Each group received three treatments over the course of 1 week for a total of 4 weeks. The primary outcome indicator was the Oswestry Disability Index, whereas the secondary outcome indicators were the Short Form of Quality of Life Scale, the Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire Scale, and gait analysis. Assessments were made before the treatment, at the end of the treatment, and at the third and sixth months' follow-ups. Gait analysis was only used for comparison between the two groups before and after treatment, and did not involve follow-up. Adverse events occurring during the trial were faithfully recorded. Conclusion: The results of this study are expected to provide a more effective research protocol for symptomatic LDH and an evidence-based rationale for the efficacy and safety of Tuina combined with TCEs in the treatment of symptomatic LDH. Clinical trial registration: https://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.html?proj=209956, identifier ChiCTR2300077361.
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 | 0.016 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.003 |
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".