Manual physical therapy and perturbation exercises in knee osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Knee osteoarthritis (OA) causes disability among the elderly and is often associated with impaired balance and proprioception. Perturbation exercises may help improve these impairments. Although manual physical therapy is generally a well-tolerated treatment for knee OA, perturbation exercises have not been evaluated when used with a manual physical therapy approach. The purpose of this study was to observe tolerance to perturbation exercises and the effect of a manual physical therapy approach with perturbation exercises on patients with knee OA. METHODS: This was a prospective observational cohort study of 15 patients with knee OA. The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC), global rating of change (GROC), and 72-hour post-treatment tolerance were primary outcome measures. Patients received perturbation balance exercises along with a manual physical therapy approach, twice weekly for 4 weeks. Follow-up evaluation was done at 1, 3, and 6 months after beginning the program. RESULTS: Mean total WOMAC score significantly improved (P = 0.001) after the 4-week program (total WOMAC: initial, 105; 4 weeks, 56; 3 months, 54; 6 months, 57). Mean improvements were similar to previously published trials of manual physical therapy without perturbation exercises. The GROC score showed a minimal clinically important difference (MCID)≥+3 in 13 patients (87%) at 4 weeks, 12 patients (80%) at 3 months, and 9 patients (60%) at 6 months. No patients reported exacerbation of symptoms within 72 hours following each treatment session. DISCUSSION: A manual physical therapy approach that also included perturbation exercises was well tolerated and resulted in improved outcome scores in patients with knee OA.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".