cometadata/datacite-titles-descriptions-related-identifiers huggingface dataset:
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.4670479
title: Supplementary Material for: The Effects of Cupping Massage in Patients with Chronic Neck Pain - A Randomised Controlled Trial

description: Background: Chronic neck pain is a major public health burden with only limited evidence for the effectiveness of complementary therapies. This study aimed to test the efficacy of cupping massage in patients with neck pain. Patients and Methods: Patients with chronic non-specific neck pain were randomly assigned to cupping massage or a wait list control. The intervention group received 5 cupping massages on a twice-weekly basis while the control patients continued their usual treatments. The primary outcome measure was neck pain intensity (0–100 mm visual analogue scale (VAS)) after 3 weeks. Secondary outcomes included pain on movement, functional disability, health-related quality of life, mechanical detection and pain thresholds and adverse events. Results: 50 patients (52.6 ± 10.3 years, 92% female) were randomised to either cupping massage or a wait list (N = 25 each). Patients in the cupping group reported significantly less neck pain post intervention (difference per protocol –14.3 mm, 95% confidence interval (CI) –27.7 to –1.0, p = 0.037; difference intention-to-treat –10.8 mm, 95% CI –21.5 to –0.1, p = 0.047). Significant group differences in favour of the intervention were further found for pain on movement (p = 0.019) and functional disability (p &lt; 0.001), the quality-of-life subscales pain (p = 0.002) and mental health (p = 0.003) and the mental component summary (p = 0.036). Changes were also found for pressure pain sensitivity at the site of maximal pain (p = 0.022). Five adverse events were reported. Conclusions: Cupping massage appears to be effective in reducing pain and increasing function and quality of life in patients with chronic non-specific neck pain. More rigorous studies are needed to confirm and extend these results.
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.4670530.v3
title: OpenStack Tag Data & Definitions of Contentious Patterns

description: --- OpenStack Tag DataIn order to support future replication studies, we have used publicly available datasets and have made our manually tagged review data available here.[File] spsn_abandon172_fse.csv:The tags for abandoned contentious patches. The total number of tags is 172. spsn_integrate189_fse.csv:The tags for integrated contentious patches. The total number of tags is 189.[Column in a file] "Review Id" is an identification number of a patch. For example, in the paper, review #33395 is Review Id 33395. "Tag" is a key concern associated with abandoned contentious patches or integrated contentious patches. For example, in abandoned contentious patches, the key concern of Review Id 33395 is "Shallow Fix".<br>--- Definitions of Contentious PatternsHere is the definitions that explain a each tag of contentious patches.RQ3Unnecessary Fix Unclear Intention: The rationale for the patch was not clear to reviewers. Already Fixed: The patch addresses an issue that has already been addressed by another (set of) patch(es). Not an Issue: The motivation for the patch is not compelling.Integration Planning Patch Dependency: A patch that depends on other patches, which have not been approved for integration Blueprint: Collections of related OpenStack issues are grouped using Blueprints. Blueprints are used for long-term release planning of OpenStack work. Release Schedule: A patch whose integration depends on the release schedule of internal projects.Integration Policy Compliance Squashing Commits: Every author needs to clean their commit log history to avoid integration problems. Branch Placement: The submitted patch should be addressed on an appropriate branch.Lack of Interest Lost by an author: The author may lose interest. Lost by a reviewer: The reviewer(s) may lose interest.Design Alternative Solution: Another solution to resolve the issue under discussion is proposed. Flawed Changes: A patch that suffers from a design-level problem. Shallow Fix: A patch that does not completely address the underlying issue. Side Effect: A patch that has unintended (negative) consequences.Implementation Patch Size: The size of a submitted patch may be not appropriate. Backward Compatibility: A submitted patch may break backward compatibility.Testing Test Coverage: A submitted patch with a lack of test coverage. Test Failure: A submitted patch that test failure may uncover issues.RQ4Legal Problems Legal Issues: Legal issues can also block a patch from being integrated.Withdrawal of Negative Score Self-change: The reviewer who opposes integration can withdraw their score without discussion. Persuasion: The opposing reviewer can be persuaded by the the author or another reviewer to approve integration.
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.4670479.v1
title: Supplementary Material for: The Effects of Cupping Massage in Patients with Chronic Neck Pain - A Randomised Controlled Trial

description: Background: Chronic neck pain is a major public health burden with only limited evidence for the effectiveness of complementary therapies. This study aimed to test the efficacy of cupping massage in patients with neck pain. Patients and Methods: Patients with chronic non-specific neck pain were randomly assigned to cupping massage or a wait list control. The intervention group received 5 cupping massages on a twice-weekly basis while the control patients continued their usual treatments. The primary outcome measure was neck pain intensity (0–100 mm visual analogue scale (VAS)) after 3 weeks. Secondary outcomes included pain on movement, functional disability, health-related quality of life, mechanical detection and pain thresholds and adverse events. Results: 50 patients (52.6 ± 10.3 years, 92% female) were randomised to either cupping massage or a wait list (N = 25 each). Patients in the cupping group reported significantly less neck pain post intervention (difference per protocol –14.3 mm, 95% confidence interval (CI) –27.7 to –1.0, p = 0.037; difference intention-to-treat –10.8 mm, 95% CI –21.5 to –0.1, p = 0.047). Significant group differences in favour of the intervention were further found for pain on movement (p = 0.019) and functional disability (p &lt; 0.001), the quality-of-life subscales pain (p = 0.002) and mental health (p = 0.003) and the mental component summary (p = 0.036). Changes were also found for pressure pain sensitivity at the site of maximal pain (p = 0.022). Five adverse events were reported. Conclusions: Cupping massage appears to be effective in reducing pain and increasing function and quality of life in patients with chronic non-specific neck pain. More rigorous studies are needed to confirm and extend these results.
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.4670530.v4
title: OpenStack Tag Data & Definitions of Contentious Patterns

description: --- OpenStack Tag DataIn order to support future replication studies, we have used publicly available datasets and have made our manually tagged review data available here.[File] spsn_abandon172.csv:The tags for abandoned contentious patches. The total number of tags is 172. spsn_integrate189.csv:The tags for integrated contentious patches. The total number of tags is 189.[Column in a file] "Review Id" is an identification number of a patch. For example, in the paper, review #33395 is Review Id 33395. "Tag" is a key concern associated with abandoned contentious patches or integrated contentious patches. For example, in abandoned contentious patches, the key concern of Review Id 33395 is "Shallow Fix".<br>--- Definitions of Contentious PatternsHere is the definitions that explain a each tag of contentious patches.RQ3Unnecessary Fix Unclear Intention: The rationale for the patch was not clear to reviewers. Already Fixed: The patch addresses an issue that has already been addressed by another (set of) patch(es). Not an Issue: The motivation for the patch is not compelling.Integration Planning Patch Dependency: A patch that depends on other patches, which have not been approved for integration Blueprint: Collections of related OpenStack issues are grouped using Blueprints. Blueprints are used for long-term release planning of OpenStack work. Release Schedule: A patch whose integration depends on the release schedule of internal projects.Integration Policy Compliance Squashing Commits: Every author needs to clean their commit log history to avoid integration problems. Branch Placement: The submitted patch should be addressed on an appropriate branch.Lack of Interest Lost by an author: The author may lose interest. Lost by a reviewer: The reviewer(s) may lose interest.Design Alternative Solution: Another solution to resolve the issue under discussion is proposed. Flawed Changes: A patch that suffers from a design-level problem. Shallow Fix: A patch that does not completely address the underlying issue. Side Effect: A patch that has unintended (negative) consequences.Implementation Patch Size: The size of a submitted patch may be not appropriate. Backward Compatibility: A submitted patch may break backward compatibility.Testing Test Coverage: A submitted patch with a lack of test coverage. Test Failure: A submitted patch that test failure may uncover issues.RQ4Legal Problems Legal Issues: Legal issues can also block a patch from being integrated.Withdrawal of Negative Score Self-change: The reviewer who opposes integration can withdraw their score without discussion. Persuasion: The opposing reviewer can be persuaded by the the author or another reviewer to approve integration.
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.4670530.v5
title: OpenStack Tag Data & Definitions of Contentious Patterns

description: --- OpenStack Tag DataIn order to support future replication studies, we have used publicly available datasets and have made our manually tagged review data available here.[File] spsn_abandon172.csv:The tags for abandoned contentious patches. The total number of tags is 172. spsn_integrate189.csv:The tags for integrated contentious patches. The total number of tags is 189.non-contention_abandon342_emse:The tags for abandoned non-contentious patches. The total number of tags is 342. non-contention_integrate381_emse:The tags for integrated non-contentious patches. The total number of tags is 381.<br>[Column in a file] "Review Id" is an identification number of a patch. For example, in the paper, review #33395 is Review Id 33395. "Tag" is a key concern associated with abandoned contentious patches or integrated contentious patches. For example, in abandoned contentious patches, the key concern of Review Id 33395 is "Shallow Fix".<br>--- Definitions of Contentious PatternsHere is the definitions that explain a each tag of contentious patches.RQ3Unnecessary Fix Unclear Intention: The rationale for the patch was not clear to reviewers. Already Fixed: The patch addresses an issue that has already been addressed by another (set of) patch(es). Not an Issue: The motivation for the patch is not compelling.Integration Planning Patch Dependency: A patch that depends on other patches, which have not been approved for integration Blueprint: Collections of related OpenStack issues are grouped using Blueprints. Blueprints are used for long-term release planning of OpenStack work. Release Schedule: A patch whose integration depends on the release schedule of internal projects.Integration Policy Compliance Squashing Commits: Every author needs to clean their commit log history to avoid integration problems. Branch Placement: The submitted patch should be addressed on an appropriate branch.Lack of Interest Lost by an author: The author may lose interest. Lost by a reviewer: The reviewer(s) may lose interest.Design Alternative Solution: Another solution to resolve the issue under discussion is proposed. Flawed Changes: A patch that suffers from a design-level problem. Shallow Fix: A patch that does not completely address the underlying issue. Side Effect: A patch that has unintended (negative) consequences.Implementation Patch Size: The size of a submitted patch may be not appropriate. Backward Compatibility: A submitted patch may break backward compatibility.Testing Test Coverage: A submitted patch with a lack of test coverage. Test Failure: A submitted patch that test failure may uncover issues.RQ4Legal Problems Legal Issues: Legal issues can also block a patch from being integrated.Withdrawal of Negative Score Self-change: The reviewer who opposes integration can withdraw their score without discussion. Persuasion: The opposing reviewer can be persuaded by the the author or another reviewer to approve integration.
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.4670530.v6
title: OpenStack Tag Data & Definitions of Contentious Patterns

description: --- OpenStack Tag DataIn order to support future replication studies, we have used publicly available datasets and have made our manually tagged review data available here.[File] spsn_abandon172.csv:The tags for abandoned contentious patches. The total number of tags is 172. spsn_integrate189.csv:The tags for integrated contentious patches. The total number of tags is 189.non-contention_abandon342_emse:The tags for abandoned non-contentious patches. The total number of tags is 342. non-contention_integrate381_emse:The tags for integrated non-contentious patches. The total number of tags is 381.<br>[Column in a file] "Review Id" is an identification number of a patch. For example, in the paper, review #33395 is Review Id 33395. "Tag" is a key concern associated with abandoned contentious patches or integrated contentious patches. For example, in abandoned contentious patches, the key concern of Review Id 33395 is "Shallow Fix".<br>--- Definitions of Contentious PatternsHere is the definitions that explain a each tag of contentious patches.RQ3Unnecessary Fix Unclear Intention: The rationale for the patch was not clear to reviewers. Already Fixed: The patch addresses an issue that has already been addressed by another (set of) patch(es). Not an Issue: The motivation for the patch is not compelling.Integration Planning Patch Dependency: A patch that depends on other patches, which have not been approved for integration Blueprint: Collections of related OpenStack issues are grouped using Blueprints. Blueprints are used for long-term release planning of OpenStack work. Release Schedule: A patch whose integration depends on the release schedule of internal projects.Integration Policy Compliance Squashing Commits: Every author needs to clean their commit log history to avoid integration problems. Branch Placement: The submitted patch should be addressed on an appropriate branch.Lack of Interest Lost by an author: The author may lose interest. Lost by a reviewer: The reviewer(s) may lose interest.Design Alternative Solution: Another solution to resolve the issue under discussion is proposed. Flawed Changes: A patch that suffers from a design-level problem. Shallow Fix: A patch that does not completely address the underlying issue. Side Effect: A patch that has unintended (negative) consequences.Implementation Patch Size: The size of a submitted patch may be not appropriate. Backward Compatibility: A submitted patch may break backward compatibility.Testing Test Coverage: A submitted patch with a lack of test coverage. Test Failure: A submitted patch that test failure may uncover issues.RQ4Legal Problems Legal Issues: Legal issues can also block a patch from being integrated.Withdrawal of Negative Score Self-change: The reviewer who opposes integration can withdraw their score without discussion. Persuasion: The opposing reviewer can be persuaded by the the author or another reviewer to approve integration.
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.4670530.v7
title: OpenStack Tag Data & Definitions of Contentious Patterns

description: --- OpenStack Tag DataIn order to support future replication studies, we have used publicly available datasets and have made our manually tagged review data available here.[File] spsn_abandon172.csv:The tags for abandoned contentious patches. The total number of tags is 172. spsn_integrate189.csv:The tags for integrated contentious patches. The total number of tags is 189.non-contention_abandon342_emse:The tags for abandoned non-contentious patches. The total number of tags is 342. non-contention_integrate381_emse:The tags for integrated non-contentious patches. The total number of tags is 381.<br>[Column in a file] "Review Id" is an identification number of a patch. For example, in the paper, review #33395 is Review Id 33395. "Tag" is a key concern associated with abandoned contentious patches or integrated contentious patches. For example, in abandoned contentious patches, the key concern of Review Id 33395 is "Shallow Fix".<br>--- Definitions of Contentious PatternsHere is the definitions that explain a each tag of contentious patches.RQ3Unnecessary Fix Unclear Intention: The rationale for the patch was not clear to reviewers. Already Fixed: The patch addresses an issue that has already been addressed by another (set of) patch(es). Not an Issue: The motivation for the patch is not compelling.Integration Planning Patch Dependency: A patch that depends on other patches, which have not been approved for integration Blueprint: Collections of related OpenStack issues are grouped using Blueprints. Blueprints are used for long-term release planning of OpenStack work. Release Schedule: A patch whose integration depends on the release schedule of internal projects.Integration Policy Compliance Squashing Commits: Every author needs to clean their commit log history to avoid integration problems. Branch Placement: The submitted patch should be addressed on an appropriate branch.Lack of Interest Lost by an author: The author may lose interest. Lost by a reviewer: The reviewer(s) may lose interest.Design Alternative Solution: Another solution to resolve the issue under discussion is proposed. Flawed Changes: A patch that suffers from a design-level problem. Shallow Fix: A patch that does not completely address the underlying issue. Side Effect: A patch that has unintended (negative) consequences.Implementation Patch Size: The size of a submitted patch may be not appropriate. Backward Compatibility: A submitted patch may break backward compatibility.Testing Test Coverage: A submitted patch with a lack of test coverage. Test Failure: A submitted patch that test failure may uncover issues.RQ4Legal Problems Legal Issues: Legal issues can also block a patch from being integrated.Withdrawal of Negative Score Self-change: The reviewer who opposes integration can withdraw their score without discussion. Persuasion: The opposing reviewer can be persuaded by the the author or another reviewer to approve integration.
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.4670530.v8
title: OpenStack Tag Data & Definitions of Contentious Patterns

description: --- OpenStack Tag DataIn order to support future replication studies, we have used publicly available datasets and have made our manually tagged review data available here.[File] spsn_abandon172.csv:The tags for abandoned contentious patches. The total number of tags is 172. spsn_integrate189.csv:The tags for integrated contentious patches. The total number of tags is 189.non-contention_abandon342_emse:The tags for abandoned non-contentious patches. The total number of tags is 342. non-contention_integrate381_emse:The tags for integrated non-contentious patches. The total number of tags is 381.<br>[Column in a file] "Review Id" is an identification number of a patch. For example, in the paper, review #33395 is Review Id 33395. "Tag" is a key concern associated with abandoned contentious patches or integrated contentious patches. For example, in abandoned contentious patches, the key concern of Review Id 33395 is "Shallow Fix".<br>--- Definitions of Contentious PatternsHere is the definitions that explain a each tag of contentious patches.RQ3Unnecessary Fix Unclear Intention: The rationale for the patch was not clear to reviewers. Already Fixed: The patch addresses an issue that has already been addressed by another (set of) patch(es). Not an Issue: The motivation for the patch is not compelling.Integration Planning Patch Dependency: A patch that depends on other patches, which have not been approved for integration Blueprint: Collections of related OpenStack issues are grouped using Blueprints. Blueprints are used for long-term release planning of OpenStack work. Release Schedule: A patch whose integration depends on the release schedule of internal projects.Integration Policy Compliance Squashing Commits: Every author needs to clean their commit log history to avoid integration problems. Branch Placement: The submitted patch should be addressed on an appropriate branch.Lack of Interest Lost by an author: The author may lose interest. Lost by a reviewer: The reviewer(s) may lose interest.Design Alternative Solution: Another solution to resolve the issue under discussion is proposed. Flawed Changes: A patch that suffers from a design-level problem. Shallow Fix: A patch that does not completely address the underlying issue. Side Effect: A patch that has unintended (negative) consequences.Implementation Patch Size: The size of a submitted patch may be not appropriate. Backward Compatibility: A submitted patch may break backward compatibility.Testing Test Coverage: A submitted patch with a lack of test coverage. Test Failure: A submitted patch that test failure may uncover issues.RQ4Legal Problems Legal Issues: Legal issues can also block a patch from being integrated.Withdrawal of Negative Score Self-change: The reviewer who opposes integration can withdraw their score without discussion. Persuasion: The opposing reviewer can be persuaded by the the author or another reviewer to approve integration.
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.4670530.v9
title: A Replication Package for Contentious Patch Analysis

description: To enable future studies, we have made a replication package available here, which includes the quantitative and qualitative data, and more detailed hierarchies of the reasons for abandonment and integration of contentious patches (omitted in the paper due to space limitations).
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.4670530.v10
title: A Replication Package for Contentious Patch Analysis

description: [SUMMARY]To enable future studies, we have made a replication package available here, which includes the quantitative and qualitative data, and more detailed hierarchies of the reasons for abandonment and integration of contentious patches (omitted in the paper due to space limitations).<br>[DATASET]- <i>RQ1_RQ3.zip</i> consists of the raw datasets and R script that replicate the graphs in our quantitative analysis.- <i>RQ4_RQ5.zip</i> consists of the two labeled datasets where each review is labeled as spsn, snsp, or non (Non-Contention).<br><br>[CONTENTION CATEGORY (RQ4 and RQ5)]<i>Contention_NonContention_Comparison.pdf</i> consists of two taxonomies that explain the detailed reviewer concerns.- Table 1 shows the taxonomy that explains the reviewer concerns that raise contention in abandoned SP-SN and SN-SP reviews. In addition to it, this table also does reviewer concerns that were raised without contention in abandoned non-contentious reviews.- Table 2 shows the taxonomy that explains how reviewers resolve contention in integrated SP-SN and SN-SP reviews. In addition to it, this table also does reviewer concerns that were raised without contention in integrated non-contentious reviews.<br>