Retrowalking as an adjunct to conventional treatment versus conventional treatment alone on pain and disability in patients with acute exacerbation of chronic knee osteoarthritis: A randomized clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Increased external knee adduction moment during walking alters the joint biomechanics; which causes symptoms in chronic knee osteoarthritis patients. AIMS: To assess additional effects of Retro-walking over conventional treatment on pain and disability in patients with acute exacerbation of chronic knee osteoarthritis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty chronic knee osteoarthritis patients were randomly assigned into 2 groups. Group 'A' (7 men, 8 women) received conventional treatment. Group 'B' (8 men, 7 women) received conventional treatment and Retro-walking. Pain, assessed through visual analogue scale (VAS), and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) were the primary outcomes and knee range of motion (ROM), hip abductor and extensor strength were secondary outcomes; measured pre-intervention, after 1 week and after 3 weeks of intervention. RESULTS: Two factors analysis of variance for repeated measures was used for all outcomes. At the end of 3 weeks; WOMAC score showed highly significant difference within (P < 0.0001) and significant difference between groups (P = 0.040) also by Time × group interaction (P = 0.024), VAS showed highly significant difference within groups (P < 0.0001). Knee ROM showed significant difference within groups. Hip abductor and extensor strength showed significant difference by Time × group interaction (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Retrowalking is an effective adjunct to conventional treatment in decreasing disability in patients with knee osteoarthritis.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".