[Comparative study on effect of acupuncture and lidocaine block for lumbar myofascial pain syndrome].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To observe the clinical efficacy of acupuncture at Jiaji (EX-B 2) points mainly for lumbar myofascial pain syndrome (MPS). METHODS: Sixty-six cases of MPS were randomized into an acupuncture group and a lidocaine group, 33 cases in each group. The acupuncture group was treated with acupuncture at Jiaji (EX-B 2) points combined with needling local myofascial trigger points (MTrP), and the lidocaine group was treated with local block at trigger points with lidocaine injection. The treatment was given once every 2 days. After three and five times of the treatment, the simplified McGill scale, Oswestry disability index (ODI) and pressure-pain threshold were assessed to compare the therapeutic effects between the two groups. RESULTS: After treatment, the scores of simplified McGill and ODI of two groups were obviously reduced while the score of pressure-pain threshold was obviously increased (all P < 0.01). After three and five times of the treatment, there were no significant differences in above scores between the two groups (all P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Acupuncture at Jiaji (EX-B 2) points combined with needling MTrP is an effective and safe therapy for lumbar MPS, the therapeutic effect is equal to lidocaine block.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".