Clinical Observation on Therapeutic Effect of Cupping Combined with Acupuncture Stimulation at Trigger Points for Lumbar Myofascial Pain Syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To observe the clinical effect of cupping combined with acupuncture stimulation of trigger points on lumbar myofascial pain syndrome(MPS).Methods Sixty MPS patients were randomly divided into acupuncture+TDP group(n=30),and cupping+acupuncture group(n=30).Patients in the acupuncture+TDP group were treated by acupuncture stimulation of trigger points and local TDP irradiation,and patients of the cupping+acupuncture group treated by intensive cupping applied to the myofascial band and acupuncture stimulation of the locus according to the position of muscular tension band.The therapeutic effects were assessed according to the score of the McGill pain questionnaire composing of pain rating index(PRI),visual analogue scale(VAS)and present pain intensity(PPI)before,immediately and 1month after the treatment.Results After the treatment,the total effective rates of the acupuncture+TDP and cupping+acupuncture groups were 83.3%(25/30)and96.6%(29/30),respectively,without significant difference between the two groups(P>0.05).One month's follow-up showed that the total effective rates of the acupuncture+TDP and cupping+acupuncture groups were 40.0% and 90.0%respectively,and the latter group was significantly better than the acupuncture+TDP group in the therapeutic effect(P<0.05).The scores of PRI,VAS,PPI after the treatment were markedly decreased in both groups(P<0.05).One month later,the scores of PRI,VAS and PPI in the cupping+acupuncture group were obviously lower than those of the acupuncture group(P<0.05).ConclusionBoth acupuncture stimulation of trigger points plus TDP and cupping plus acupuncture can effectively relieve pain in MPS patients,while the therapeutic effect of cupping plus acupuncture treatment lasts longer analgesic effect.
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) | 0.001 | 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".