MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414923202 · doi:10.3389/fneur.2025.1599301

Effects of Tuina combined with traditional Chinese exercises on function disability in patients with lumbar disc herniation: a multicentre, randomised, controlled clinical trial

2025· article· en· W4414923202 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yitao Liao, Yi Wang, Zhihong Fan, Qingguang Zhu, Xin Zhou, Dandan He, Chao Li, Xian Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Neurology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersScience and Technology Development Fund
KeywordsClinical trialLumbarLumbar spineRehabilitationTraditional Chinese medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Low back pain and leg pain are common symptoms of lumbar disc herniation (LDH), which predispose patients to walking dysfunction and affect their quality of life. Tuina and Traditional Chinese Exercises (TCEs) are often used in China as passive or active treatments to alleviate the symptoms of LDH in patients and to address disability. However, high-quality multicentre clinical trials evaluating the short- and long-term efficacy of Tuina combined with TCEs in the treatment of LDH are lacking. Methods In a multicentre, randomised, controlled clinical trial, 166 patients with LDH were recruited from four centres and randomly assigned into two groups that were treated with TCEs and Tuina combined with TCEs. Each group received intervention 3 times in 1 week for 4 weeks, and efficacy was assessed at baseline, 4 weeks of treatment, 12 weeks of follow-up and 24 weeks of follow-up. The primary outcome indicator assessed was the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and the secondary outcome indicators were the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), the Short Form of Quality of Life (SF-36) Scale, the Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ) Scale and gait analysis. Results A total of 157 subjects completed the trial, and 9 were dislodged. After 4 weeks of intervention, the ODI mean value in the Tuina combined with TCE group was 16.31 (4.18), a decrease of 7.75 (95%, 6.88–8.62) from baseline. The mean value in the TCE group was 20.23 (3.43), a decrease of 3.79 (95%, 2.92–4.67) from baseline. The ODI scores were significantly lower in the Tuina combined with TCE group compared with the TCE group at weeks 4, 12 and 24, with mean differences of 3.92 (95%, 2.75–5.09, p < 0.001), 2.90 (95%, 1.63–4.18, p < 0.001) and 3.03 (95%, 1.70–4.36, p < 0.001), respectively. The Tuina combined with TCE group also performed significantly better than the TCE group in the VAS, SF-MPQ, SF-36 and gait analysis. Conclusion Tuina combined with TCE therapy can effectively improve function disability, pain, quality of life and pace of step in patients with LDH, and the combined therapy is superior to single TCE therapy. Clinical trial registration ChiCTR2300077361; https://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.html?proj=209956 .

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.256 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in NeurologySame topicSpine and Intervertebral Disc PathologyFrench-language works237,207