Clinical Observation of Suspension and Massage Combined Easy Canning Technique on Lumbar Dorsal Myofascial Pain Syndrome Therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective:To explore the clinical efficacy of suspension and massage combined easy canning technique on lumbar dorsal myofascial pain syndrome therapy.Methods:A total of 60 patients with lumbar dorsal myofascial pain syndrome were randomly divided into joint therapy group and control group, with 30 cases in each group. The joint therapy group applied suspension and massage combined with easy canning therapy, the control group applied easy canning therapy only. Simplified McGill Scale and Musculoskeletal Ultrasonography (MSUS) were applied before treatment, two courses of treatment and one month after treatment to assess the degree of pain in patients, changes in muscle thickness of the ipsilateral psoas muscle and the lumbar muscle.Results:At the end of second therapeutic course, the simplified McGill pain scale scores of both groups were significantly lower than that before therapy, the efficacy of joint therapy group was superior to that of control group (P<0.05).The thickness of ipsilateral psoas muscle, lumbar muscles in both groups increased significantly than that before treatment, the joint therapy group was superior to that of the control group (P<0.05);The pain score of the joint therapy group was significantly lower than that of control group after one month of recovery. Although the thickness of ipsilateral psoas muscle and lumbar muscle all decreased, the muscle thickness of joint therapy group was still significantly higher than that of control group (P<0.05).Conclusion:Suspension and massage combined with easy canning therapy has a better curative effect on the treatment of lumbar dorsal myofascial pain syndrome.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".