Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation as an Adjunct to Education and Exercise for Knee Osteoarthritis: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the additional effects of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for knee osteoarthritis (OA) when combined with a group education and exercise program (knee group). METHODS: The study was a randomized, sham-controlled clinical trial. Patients referred for physiotherapy with suspected knee OA (confirmed using the American College of Rheumatology clinical criteria) were invited. Exclusion criteria included comorbidities preventing exercise, previous TENS experience, and TENS contraindications. Prospective sample size calculations required 67 participants in each trial arm. A total of 224 participants (mean age 61 years, 37% men) were randomized to 3 arms: TENS and knee group (n = 73), sham TENS and knee group (n = 74), and knee group (n = 77). All patients entered an evidence-based 6-week group education and exercise program (knee group). Active TENS produced a "strong but comfortable" paraesthesia within the painful area and was used as much as needed during the 6-week period. Sham TENS used dummy devices with no electrical output. Blinded assessment took place at baseline and 3, 6, 12, and 24 weeks. The primary outcome was the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) function subscale at 6 weeks. Secondary outcomes included WOMAC pain, stiffness, and total scores; extensor muscle torque; global assessment of change; exercise adherence; and exercise self-efficacy. Data analysis was by intent to treat. RESULTS: All outcomes improved over time (P < 0.05), but there were no differences between trial arms (P > 0.05). All improvements were maintained at 24-week followup. CONCLUSION: There were no additional benefits of TENS, failing to support its use as a treatment adjunct within this context.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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".