Effect of transcranial direct current electric stimulation associated with physical exercise in patients with greater trochanteric pain syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To describe a protocol for a trial evaluating the effects of physical exercise combined with transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) on greater trochanteric pain syndrome (GTPS), and to report the results from the feasibility phase. Design: Adults with GTPS will be recruited for this randomized controlled trial. Participants will be allocated to receive either tDCS combined with resistance training or exercise alone (sham tDCS). The primary outcome is pain, assessed using the Victorian Institute of Sports Assessment for Gluteal Tendinopathy on day 30. Secondary outcomes include performance on the Copenhagen Hip and Groin Outcome Score (HAGOS), Pain Quality Assessment Scale, 36-Item Short Form Survey, and McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ), evaluated immediately after the intervention and at 30 and 60 days post-protocol. The feasibility phase followed the same protocol. Results: In the feasibility phase, no participants reported significant side effects. Improvements were observed in 36-Item Short Form Survey, Victorian Institute of Sports Assessment for Gluteal Tendinopathy, HAGOS, and MPQ scores, except in the miscellaneous component of the MPQ and the “participation in physical activities” domain of the HAGOS. Conversely, no changes were noted in Pain Quality Assessment Scale scores. Conclusion: The results suggest that conducting a trial involving tDCS combined with low-intensity resistance training for GTPS is feasible.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".