Therapeutic ultrasound versus sham ultrasound for the management of patients with knee osteoarthritis: a randomized double‐blind controlled clinical study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The aim of this trial was to evaluate the short-term effectiveness of ultrasound (US) therapy on pain, physical function, ambulation activity, disability and psychological status in patients with knee OA. METHODS: Forty-two inpatients with bilateral knee OA were randomized by an independent researcher not involved in the data assessment, to receive either therapeutic continuous US (group 1) or sham US (group 2). A 1-MHz US head was used, set to an intensity of 1 W/cm(2) for 10 min. All patients received 20 min of hot packs, 10 min of interferential current, and 15 min of quadriceps isometric exercise of both knees. Patients in each group received treatments five times weekly for 3 weeks. Patients were evaluated at baseline and at the end of the treatment sessions. Outcome measures included visual analogue scale (VAS), Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), 50-m walking speed, Lequesne index, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). RESULTS: The patients with knee OA had significant improvements in pain, stiffness, functional activity, walking time, disability, depression and anxiety scores with therapeutic US and sham US (P < 0.05). The improvement in pain VAS scores, WOMAC scores, Lequesne index and HADS scores were not significantly different in patients treated with US and sham US (P > 0.05). No side-effects were reported during or after the US treatment periods. CONCLUSION: US therapy is safe but use of US in addition to conventional physical therapy programs seems to have no further significant effect in people 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 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) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".