Telefisioterapia para o tratamento da dor no membro fantasma: um estudo quasi-experimental
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Phantom limb pain (PLP) is a common complication of limb amputation, with a prevalence ranging from 41% to 46% of cases.Despite its uncertain pathophysiology, evidence suggests multifactorial mechanisms to explain the painful phenomenon, which directly affects the individual's quality of life.This study aimed to analyze the possible influence of a telephysiotherapy protocol for PLP on quality of life, pain intensity, and pain perception in individuals with limb amputation, in a quasi-experimental context.METHODS: A quasi-experimental study with a qualitative-quantitative approach, involving a sample of nine individuals.The instruments used were the McGill Pain Questionnaire, a verbal pain scale, the Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36), and an assessment form designed as an interview, all applied before and after the treatment protocol.The intervention consisted of an adaptation of the Graded Motor Imagery (GMI) protocol, conducted online via the Google Meet platform.Quantitative analysis was performed using the paired Wilcoxon test for nonparametric variables.The qualitative approach was analyzed using content analysis methodology.RESULTS: No significant differences were observed in quality-of-life parameters, pain intensity, or pain perception.However, qualitative reports demonstrated a perceived improvement among participants.CONCLUSION: The divergence between qualitative and quantitative results highlights the need for the development of specific questionnaires for PLP and its impact on the quality of life of individuals with limb amputation.
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 | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 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".