Efficacy of Wa‐Shi Pulling in Enhancing Core Strength for Sacroiliac Joint Pain Syndrome: Empirical Evidence of Its Effectiveness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Optimal management of sacroiliac joint pain syndrome necessitates timely and effective therapeutic interventions to achieve favorable clinical outcomes. This study was designed to investigate the efficacy of a combined treatment approach, integrating Wa‐shi pulling (WP) with core muscle strengthening exercises (CMSE), in patients with sacroiliac joint pain syndrome. Methods: A prospective study was conducted on patients diagnosed with sacroiliac joint pain syndrome between October 1, 2019, and June 30, 2022. Participants were carefully selected and randomly allocated into two groups: the WP group and the WP + CMSE group. Results: A total of 123 patients with sacroiliac joint pain syndrome were enrolled in the study. Following the intervention, significant reductions were observed in both McGill Pain Questionnaire scores and lumbosacral angles compared to baseline values (all p < 0.05). The WP + CMSE group demonstrated more pronounced reductions in McGill Pain Questionnaire scores ( p = 0.029) and greater improvements in lumbosacral angles postintervention. Additionally, JOA scores increased significantly for both groups after treatment (all p < 0.05), with the WP + CMSE group exhibiting a more substantial improvement compared to the WP group ( p = 0.039). These findings suggest a more robust therapeutic effect in the combined treatment group. Conclusion: The integration of WP and CMSE showed therapeutic effects in sacroiliac joint pain syndrome, though with variability in statistical robustness across outcomes after Bonferroni correction. Evidence for a synergistic effect remains strongest for pain relief, with conclusions regarding lumbosacral biomechanics and functional status requiring cautious interpretation pending further validation. This study provides preliminary support for the therapeutic potential of combining these modalities, with the pain‐specific findings meriting consideration in clinical practice. Trial Registration: Chinese Registry of Clinical Trials: MR‐33‐20‐001928
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 | 0.011 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".