CAPACITIVE AND RESISTIVE ELECTRICAL TRANSFER METHOD FOR ATHLETES WITH NON-SPECIFIC LOW BACK PAIN
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The popularity of capacitive and resistive electrical transfer (TECAR) therapy has increased over the last twenty years, with research highlighting its effectiveness for various musculoskeletal injuries and chronic pain conditions.Purpose: This study aims to evaluate the clinical efficacy of TECAR therapy as an adjunct to the rehabilitation program for athletes suffering from non-specific chronic low back pain (LBP).Materials and methods: The study tracked changes in pain (using the modified Merle d'Aubigne pain scale), mobility (assessed by the Schober test), muscle strength (measured by Kiel's test), and functionality (evaluated with the Roland-Morris questionnaire and the Quebec scale).Results: Measurements and tests were performed before and after the therapeutic course.The data indicate improved outcomes in pain reduction, soft tissue mobility, muscle endurance, and lumbar spine functionality for patients in the experimental group (Mann-Whitney nonparametric test).Statistically significant differences were observed across all indicators favoring patients treated with TECAR, except for back muscle endurance as assessed by Kiel's test.Conclusions: TECAR therapy demonstrates superior clinical outcomes in pain relief, mobility, and lumbar spine functionality, making it a valuable addition to specialized kinesitherapy programs for athletes with non-specific LBP.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".