Conservative Management of Patellofemoral Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this randomized, prospective, single-blinded clinical trial was to determine the most effective approach to the management of patellofemoral pain syndrome (PFPS). 75 subjects were recruited and completed 3 months of follow-up. Subjects were randomly assigned to one of four treatment groups: 1) Home exercise program (E group); 2) Patellar bracing (B group); 3) Home exercise program with patellar bracing (EB group); and 4) Home exercise program with knee sleeve (ES group). Knee function (KF) and 10 cm VAS pain ratings for three different situations (VAS1 - knee pain during sport activity, VAS2 - knee pain 1 hour after sport activity, and VAS3 - knee pain 30 minutes after sitting with knees bent for 30 minutes) were assessed at baseline, 6 and 12 weeks:TableThe results show a trend of gradual decrease in knee pain and increase in knee function over 3 months of treatment. The rate of the change in knee pain and function were similar between the four treatment groups. These results would suggest that in the initial conservative management of PFPS in adults: 1) The four treatments had similar effectiveness in reducing symptoms of PFPS; 2) Patellar bracing alone appears to have equal effectiveness to home exercise alone; and 3) Patellar bracing and knee sleeve do not seem to have added benefit to exercise treatment of PFPS. Supported by an unrestricted grant from GII Orthotics Inc., Richmond, BC, Canada.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".