Short- and Long-Term Effects of Spa Therapy in Knee Osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess both the short- and long-term effectiveness of spa therapy in patients with primary knee osteoarthritis in a prospective, randomized, single-blinded, controlled trial. DESIGN: Eighty outpatients were enrolled in this study; 40 patients were treated with a combination of daily local mud packs and bicarbonate-sulfate mineral bath water from the spa center of Rapolano Terme (Siena, Italy) for 2 wks, and 40 patients continued regular, routine ambulatory care. Patients were assessed at baseline time; after 2 wks; after 3, 6, and 9 mos after the beginning of the study and were evaluated by Visual Analog Scale for spontaneous pain, Lequesne index, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Index for gonarthrosis, Arthritis Impact Measurement Scale-1, and symptomatic drug consumption. RESULTS: We observed a significant improvement of all evaluated parameters at the end of the cycle of spa therapy, which persisted throughout the whole of the follow-up period, whereas in the control group no significant differences were noted. This symptomatic effect was confirmed by the significant reduction of symptomatic drug consumption. Tolerability of spa therapy seemed to be good, with light and transitory side effects. CONCLUSIONS: The results from our study confirm that the beneficial effects of spa therapy in patients with knee osteoarthritis lasts over time, with positive effects on the painful symptomatology and a significant improvement on functional capacities. Spa therapy can represent a useful backup to pharmacologic treatment of knee osteoarthritis or a valid alternative for patients who do not tolerate pharmacologic treatments.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".