An Experimental Study on Effects of Mulligan Mobilization Technique and Isometric Exercises in Patients with Osteoarthritis Knee
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: There is lack of evidence of effectiveness of Mulligan mobilization technique and isometric exercises in the treatment of osteoarthritis of knee. So this study is intended to find out the efficacy of these two treatment techniques while treating osteoarthritis of knee. Material and Method: Thirty subjects were included in the study. They were assigned to group 1 and group 2 with 15 subjects in each group. Group 1 received isometric exercises with mulligan's technique. Group 2 received isometric exercises alone. Both the groups underwent treatment for 3 days a week for 4 weeks. Outcome measures were Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index and 6 minutes Walk test. Data was analyzed using analysis of covariance test. Results: For pain, F(y-x) was found to be 23.90 with df (1, 27) for group 1. For stiffness, the F(y-x) value is 33.86 with df (1, 27). For physical function, F(y-x) was obtained to be 9.66 with df (1, 27). For six minute walk test, The F(y-x) value was obtained to be 27.269 with the df (1, 27). Conclusion: Isometric exercises along with manual therapy may not be effective than isometric exercises alone in treating osteoarthritis knee is rejected.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".