Efficacy of Therapeutic Ultrasound for the Management of Knee Osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare whether the effectiveness of continuous ultrasound (US) was superior against pulsed US and against sham US in knee osteoarthritis. DESIGN: A randomized controlled study was carried out on 60 patients diagnosed with knee osteoarthritis according to American College of Rheumatology. The patients were randomized into the following three treatments: (1) continuous US (at a frequency of 1 MHz with intensity of 1 W/cm), (2) pulse US (same frequency and intensity on 1:4 pulse ratio), and (3) sham US. All treatments were applied with 5-cm head US device five times a week for 2 weeks in addition to home exercise program including quadriceps isometric exercise, muscle strength exercises, and stretching exercises of the lower extremity muscles for at least three times per week. Assessments were performed at baseline, at the end of the treatment, and at the end of the treatments and at the sixth month using the following measurements: Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index-pain, stiffness, function, visual analog scale-pain at rest, visual analog scale-pain on movement, visual analog scale-disease severity, and 20-m walking time. Among these parameters, the Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index-pain was the primary outcome. RESULTS: All groups showed a significant improvement in all parameters in both following visits (P < 0.05). However, there was no significant difference between the groups. Although the mean reduction percent in Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index-pain was significantly higher in group I (continuous US) when compared to sham group (46.5% vs 28.9%, P < 0.05) at the end of the treatment, this result was not found in other pain parameters. CONCLUSIONS: The present study demonstrated that all assessment parameters significantly improved in all groups without a significant difference. This result suggested that therapeutic US provided no additional benefit in improving pain and functions in addition to exercise training.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".