MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2001476549 · doi:10.1002/art.30258

The effectiveness of pulsed electrical stimulation in the management of osteoarthritis of the knee: Results of a double‐blind, randomized, placebo‐controlled, repeated‐measures trial

2011· article· en· W2001476549 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Robyn Fary, Graeme J. Carroll, Tom Briffa, N. Kathryn Briffa

Bibliographic record

VenueArthritis & Rheumatism · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlanarian Biology and Electrostimulation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCurtin University of Technology
KeywordsWOMACConfidence intervalMedicineOsteoarthritisPlaceboRandomized controlled trialVisual analogue scalePhysical therapyKnee painInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of subsensory, pulsed electrical stimulation (PES) in the symptomatic management of osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee. METHODS: This was a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, repeated-measures trial in 70 participants with clinical and radiographically diagnosed OA of the knee who were randomized to either PES or placebo. The primary outcome was change in pain score over 26 weeks measured on a 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS). Other measures included pain on the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), function on the WOMAC, patient's global assessment of disease activity (on a 100-mm VAS), joint stiffness on the WOMAC, quality of life on the Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form 36 (SF-36) health survey, physical activity (using the Human Activity Profile and an accelerometer), and global perceived effect (on an 11-point scale). RESULTS: Thirty-four participants were randomized to PES and 36 to placebo. Intent-to-treat analysis showed a statistically significant improvement in VAS pain score over 26 weeks in both groups, but no difference between groups (mean change difference 0.9 mm [95% confidence interval -11.7, 13.4]). Similarly, there were no differences between groups for changes in WOMAC pain, function, and stiffness scores (-5.6 [95% confidence interval -14.9, 3.6], -1.9 [95% confidence interval -9.7, 5.9], and 3.7 [95% confidence interval -6.0, 13.5], respectively), SF-36 physical and mental component summary scores (1.7 [95% confidence interval -1.5, 4.8] and 1.2 [95% confidence interval -2.9, 5.4], respectively), patient's global assessment of disease activity (-2.8 [95% confidence interval -13.9, 8.4]), or activity measures. Fifty-six percent of the PES-treated group achieved a clinically relevant 20-mm improvement in VAS pain score at 26 weeks compared with 44% of controls (12% [95% confidence interval -11%, 33%]). CONCLUSION: In this sample of subjects with mild-to-moderate symptoms and moderate-to-severe radiographic OA of the knee, 26 weeks of PES was no more effective than placebo.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.350

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.228 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations34
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArthritis & RheumatismSame topicPlanarian Biology and ElectrostimulationFrench-language works237,207