The Effect of Combining Phonophoresis and Mobilization with Movement in the Management of Knee Osteoarthritis: A Clinical Trial with Randomization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Knee osteoarthritis is a major musculoskeletal problem especially in senior population. It is mechanical dysfunction and reflects degenerative changes. Clinically it manifests as pain and disability in performing activities of daily livings. Objective: The aims was to establish effect of combining Phonophoresis with Mobilization with Movement in patients with knee osteoarthritis for improvement in pain & stiffness level, functional abilities Methodology: This was Randomized Clinical Trial. A sample size of 75 participants with Osteoarthritis of knee was randomized into 3 groups of 25 participants. Group-A was treated With the Phonophoresis (Ultrasound with ketoprofen gel) alone and Group-B with Mobilization with movement alone while Group C with combination of Phonophresis and Mobilization with movement. All the three groups were treated 6times over 3 weeks. Data was collected before first treatment as baseline, after 6th treatment at 3 week period and at 6th week as follow-up. The outcomes measure used were the NRS-101 pain scale, Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnairefor pain assessment, goniometry for measurement of range and for assessing functional level the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index was used. Results: In this study, statistically significant intra-group changes (p<0.05) were noted for mobilization with movement (Group B) and particularly mobilization with movement and Phonophoresis (Group C) in all outcome measures. Conclusion: This randomized clinical trial contributes to the current evidence available to practitioners about the potential utility of mobilization with movement, particularly mobilization with movement in combination with Phonophoresis in the symptomatic treatment of knee osteoarthritis. Keywords: Knee Osteoarthritis, Mobilization with Movement, Phonophoresis
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 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".