A randomized crossover trial of a wedged insole for treatment of knee osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: In uncontrolled studies, a lateral-wedge insole has reduced knee pain in patients with medial knee osteoarthritis (OA). The aim of this study was to test the efficacy of this simple, low-cost intervention for pain in patients with medial knee OA. METHODS: We conducted a double-blind, randomized, crossover trial designed to detect a small effect of treatment. Participants were at least 50 years of age and had medial joint space narrowing on posteroanterior semiflexed radiographs and scores indicating moderate pain for 2 of the 5 items on the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain scale. Participants were randomized to receive a 5 degrees lateral-wedge insole or a neutral insole for 6 weeks. Following a 4-week washout period, participants crossed over to the other treatment for 6 weeks. Knee pain, the primary outcome, was assessed by the WOMAC pain scale (visual analog scale version). Secondary outcomes included the WOMAC disability subscale, overall knee pain, 50-feet walk time, chair-stand time, and use of medications for knee pain. RESULTS: Ninety patients were randomized. The mean difference in pain between the 2 treatments was 13.8 points on the WOMAC pain scale (95% confidence interval -3.9, 31.4 [P=0.13]). We observed similar small effects for the secondary outcomes. CONCLUSION: The effect of treatment with a lateral-wedge insole for knee OA was neither statistically significant nor clinically important.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".