MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4407227093 · doi:10.33425/3066-6538.1007

Evaluation of the Efficiency of Low-Level Laser Therapy in Female Patients with Chronic Pelvic Pain: A Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Study

2024· article· en· W4407227093 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hatice Reşorlu, Fatma Beyazıt

Bibliographic record

VenueSurgery and Clinical Practice · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEndometriosis Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPelvic painMedicinePlaceboDouble blindPhysical therapySurgeryAlternative medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: In this study, it is aimed to determine the efficacy of Low-level Laser Therapy (LLLT) in the treatment of Chronic Pelvic Pain Syndrome (CPPS), and to evaluate the effects of LLLT on depression, anxiety and quality of life. Material and Method: Female CPPS were included in the study. LLLT was applied to the first group, and placebo (sham operation) was applied to the second group. Patients were evaluated by Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), McGill Melzack Pain Questionnaire (MMPQ), Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) and Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI) and 36- Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), before the treatment, at the end of treatment, and 8 weeks after randomization. Results: The patients included in the treatment group (n = 11) and in the placebo group (n = 8) were calculated as 38.91 ± 5.20 and 37.25 ± 6.34, respectively. In the treatment group, a significant difference was found between the pre-treatment (VASPre-T) and end of treatment (VASPost-T) pain values and between pre-treatment (VASPre-T) pain values and pain values measured 8 weeks after randomization (VAS8th-week) (p: 0.003, p: 0.003). Additionally, a significant improvement in MMPQ scores was also found in the treatment group. (p: 0.037 and p: 0.008 respectively). When the MMPQ and BDI values in both groups were compared, there was no difference (p>0.05). Furthermore, it was observed that the level of anxiety (BAI) decreased at the end of the treatment, although not significantly, in the placebo group (p: 0.12), Additionally, significant improvements were observed in terms of SF-36 quality of life scale sub-scores. Conclusion: The results of this study suggest that LLLT, a simple, non-invasive, inexpensive and safe treatment method, can be useful in the treatment of CPPS. Yet, large-scale multi-center studies are needed to support the positive results found in favor of LLLT in this study.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.143
GPT teacher head0.454
Teacher spread0.311 · 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 designRandomized trial
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 venueSurgery and Clinical Practice→Same topicEndometriosis Research and Treatment→French-language works237,207→