Comparison of manual therapy and taping in knee osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is one of the most common degenerative diseases and a leading cause of severe pain and significant disability, especially in elderly people. Different methods have been suggested for treatment of OA. The aim of this study was to compare manual therapy with taping as two therapeutic methods for OA. Materials & Methods: 36 patients with OA who were in their middle ages (average age, 50.31±6.65 years) were selected through convenience sampling method. All of patients had been suffered from knee OA more than one year. Patients were randomly assigned to either taping or manual therapy. Both groups received a routine physical therapy including ultrasound and TENS. For group 1, taping was applied during 6 sessions and for group 2, manual therapy was administered for 10 sessions on a two-week period. The patients were evaluated before and after the treatment in terms of pain via NRS (numerical rating scale) and of functionality using the WOMAC (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities) osteoarthritis index. Results: In all variables of interest, there were significant improvements after termination of treatment sessions in both groups (P<0.001).There was, however, no significant difference in joint stiffness before and after taping treatment (p=0.323).The results showed that manual therapy was significantly more effective than taping in alleviating symptoms (p< 0.05). Conclusion: Both manual therapy and taping had significant effect on OA of knee but manual therapy may be a better therapeutic option than taping in decreasing pain and disability of affected patients. Manual therapy is a non invasive, complication-free, and cost-effective method for conservative treatment of knee OA. Key words: Knee osteoarthritis, Manual therapy, Taping
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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".