Trial reportInternational journal of biometeorology2026
Clinical efficacy of peloidotherapy on pain, sleep quality, and central sensitization-related symptoms in chronic low back pain: a comparative analysis.
Trial report in International journal of biometeorology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to investigate the effect of peloidotherapy applied in chronic low back pain on pain and central sensitization and its reflections on patients' sleep quality, fatigue levels, functional capacity, and disability status. In this prospective, randomized, single-blind study, 74 patients were assigned to the Electrotherapy Group (EG: hot pack+TENS+exercise) or Peloidotherapy Group (PG: peloidotherapy+TENS+exercise) for 15 sessions. Treatments were administered 5 days per week for 3 weeks. Clinical assessments were performed pre/post-treatment using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Central Sensitization Inventory (CSI), Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale (QBPDS), Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F), Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), and EQ-5D-3 L. Both groups showed significant within-group improvements in most outcomes (all p < 0.001), except for the EQ-5D index in the EG. According to the ANCOVA results adjusted for baseline values and pain duration, the PG demonstrated significantly superior post-treatment outcomes compared to the EG in VAS (p = 0.006), EQ-5D index (p = 0.004), and PSQI (p = 0.044) scores. Furthermore, the adjusted delta score analysis confirmed that the improvements in the PG were significantly greater than those in the EG for VAS (p = 0.026), EQ-5D (p = 0.004), and PSQI (p = 0.044). In contrast, no significant between-group differences were observed for CSI, QBPDS, FACIT, or EQ-5D VAS scores (p > 0.05). Both treatments improved pain and central sensitization-related measures, likely due to shared thermal effects. While peloidotherapy showed superior improvements in pain intensity, sleep quality, and health status, no specific superior effect on CSI scores was demonstrated compared to electrotherapy.
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.