Combined trigger point acupuncture knife and traditional Chinese medicine split-tendon massage for shoulder periarthritis: improved function and quality of life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness of combining trigger point acupuncture knife (TPAK) with Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) split-tendon massage therapy versus TPAK alone. METHODS: A retrospective study included 237 patients diagnosed with shoulder periarthritis. Of these, 114 patients received only TPAK therapy (TPAK Group), while 123 patients underwent a combination of TPAK and TCM split-tendon massage therapy (TPAK + TCM Group). Shoulder function was assessed using the Constant-Murley Score (CMS) and shoulder range of motion (ROM). Pain levels were evaluated using the Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ). Psychological status, sleep quality, and overall quality of life were measured using the WHOQOL-BREF questionnaire, both before and 3 months after treatment. RESULTS: < 0.05), compared to the TPAK group. CONCLUSION: Combining TPAK with TCM split-tendon massage proved more effective than TPAK alone in treating shoulder periarthritis, improving function, reducing pain, enhancing psychological well-being, and improving sleep quality.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".