Trial reportPain research & management2026
Biomechanical Comparisons of Two Types of Tuina in Treating Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Finite Element Analysis.
Trial report in Pain research & management, 2026. 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.
- Biomechanical Comparisons of Two Types of Tuina in Treating Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Finite Element Analysis.Pain research & management · 2026Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Prior research has demonstrated the clinical efficacy of two specialized Tuina techniques, namely, high-speed oblique Tuina (HSOT) and low-speed oblique Tuina (LSOT), in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation (LDH). These techniques integrate principles of traditional Chinese medicine with modern manual therapy. Despite their proven therapeutic benefits, the biomechanical effects of HSOT and LSOT on spinal structures remain poorly understood. Aim: Finite element analysis (FEA) was utilized to investigate the biomechanical effects of HSOT and LSOT on a patient with LDH, aiming to elucidate their underlying treatment mechanisms. Methods: The mechanical parameters of HSOT and LSOT applied to a participant with left L4/5 LDH were meticulously measured using a state-of-the-art Multipoint Thin Film Pressure Testing System. These comprehensive data, along with the corresponding high-resolution computerized tomography (CT) scan data, were subsequently input into four advanced finite element analysis (FEA) software programs. These programs were employed to conduct a detailed analysis of the stress-strain characteristics of both HSOT and LSOT on the spinal structures, enabling a thorough comparison of their biomechanical effects and potential therapeutic outcomes. Results: The maximum stress and average displacement of vertebral and ligamentous structures during HSOT in the lumbar vertebrae-pelvis model doubled those of LSOT. HSOT caused the maximum average displacement of the L4/5 right intertransverse ligament, whereas LSOT induced the maximal mean displacement of the L4/5 left intertransverse ligament. Additionally, HSOT caused the maximum average displacement of the right iliolumbar ligament, but the maximum mean displacement was observed in the left iliolumbar ligament during LSOT. Conclusion: Both HSOT and LSOT produced small displacements of the lumbar and pelvic structures, but HSOT elicited significantly greater displacement and stress on various spinal tissues than LSOT. These mechanical responses may be the biomechanical effects of HSOT and LSOT in people with LDH.
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.