ReviewHeliyon2024
Can alternative medical methods evoke somatosensory responses and functional improvement?
Review in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Evidence-based scientific studies focusing on complementary alternative medicine (CAM) and potential functional improvement after an insult of the central nervous system are lacking. Aims: We aim to demonstrate that functional recovery after stimulation applied as a CAM treatment through cauterization might trigger neural repair and regenerative paths similarly as acupuncture, cupping, electrical or magnetic stimulations. Those paths are important in recovery of function. Procedures: Medical records and information of ten patients, with initial presentations of cerebral trauma or spinal cord insult inducing paralysis, were studied. Patients ages ranged from 17 to 95-year-old. Patients consulted for alternative medical treatment one year or more after initial diagnosis.CAM treatment consisted in 10-point stimulation on the skull and 4-point stimulation located at the right and left calves and forearms. Stimulations consisted of a heated steel rod application (cautery) in a one-time session. The duration of each stimulation was about 0.5 s. Results: Most studies using CAM stimulations (acupuncture, cautery, cupping, moxibustion, electrical and magnetic stimulations) describe improvement. In all 10 medical records and information from our practitioner, patients had improvement in their motor skills, including gain of weight support, unassisted small walks, independent and voluntary movements of limbs. Improvement was steady over a period of one to several years. Conclusion: We compared our findings to acupuncture, electrical, magnetic field effects to highlight common paths and to provide scientific evidence for recovery of the function. We believe that CAM treatments triggered existing or new neuronal networks as well as synaptic efficiency or reactivation, through highly increased, sensory nociceptive coupled to proprioceptive, afferences. Those results also highlight the need to further investigate neural function of cortical and subcortical areas through indirect pathways stimulations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.