Effectiveness of medial‐wedge insole treatment for valgus knee osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of medial-wedge insoles in valgus knee osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: Thirty consecutive women with valgus-deformity knee OA > or = 8 degrees were randomized into 2 groups: medial insole (insoles with 8-mm medial elevation at the rearfoot [n = 16]) and neutral insole (similar insole without elevation [n = 14]). Both groups also wore ankle supports. A blinded examiner assessed pain on movement, at rest, and at night with a visual analog scale (VAS), the Lequesne index, and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) Index. Femorotibial, talocalcaneal, and talar tilt angles were evaluated at baseline and after 8 weeks of insole use. RESULTS: Significant reductions in the medial insole group were observed for pain on movement (mean +/- SD VAS pre- and postintervention 8.1 +/- 1.5 versus 4.2 +/- 2.4; P = 0.001), at rest (5.1 +/- 2.3 versus 2.7 +/- 2.4; P = 0.002), and at night (6.1 +/- 2.7 versus 3.1 +/- 2.1; P = 0.001). In addition, a decrease in Lequesne (14.7 +/- 3.4 versus 9.6 +/- 3.8; P = 0.001) and WOMAC scores (74.1 +/- 14.2 versus 56.1 +/- 14.9; P = 0.001) was observed for the medial insole group. In the neutral insole group, a significant reduction was observed only for night pain (mean +/- SD VAS pre- and postintervention 5.8 +/- 2.4 versus 4.6 +/- 2.4; P = 0.019). An increase in femorotibial angle (169.0 +/- 3.4 versus 170.8 +/- 3.7; P = 0.001) occurred only in the medial insole group. Moreover, the difference in measured femorotibial angles pre- and postintervention was 1.84 +/- 1.42 versus -0.18 +/- 0.67 (P < 0.001) for the medial and neutral insole groups. CONCLUSION: The use of medial-wedge insoles was highly effective in reducing pain at rest and on movement and promoted a functional improvement of valgus 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".