Effectiveness of acupressure versus isometric exercise on pain, stiffness, and physical function in knee osteoarthritis female patients
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common form of arthritis and a leading cause of disability in older adults. Conservative non-pharmacological strategies, particularly exercise, are recommended by clinical guidelines for its management. The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of acupressure versus isometric exercise on pain, stiffness, and physical function in knee OA female patients. This quasi experimental study was conducted at the inpatient and outpatient sections at Al-kasr Al-Aini hospital, Cairo University. It involved three groups of 30 patients each: isometric exercise, acupressure, and control. Data were collected by an interview form and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis index (WOMAC) scale. The study revealed high initial scores of pain, stiffness, and impaired physical functioning. After the intervention, pain decreased in the two intervention groups compared to the control group (p < 0.001), while the scores of stiffness and impaired physical function were significantly lower in the isometric group (p < 0.001) compared to the other two groups. The decrease in the total WOMAC score was sharper in the two study groups compared to the control group. In multiple linear regression, the duration of illness was a positive predictor of WOMAC score, whereas the intervention is associated with a reduction in the score. In conclusion, isometric exercise and acupressure provide an improvement of pain, stiffness, and physical function in patients with knee OA. Since isometric exercise leads to more improvement of stiffness and physical function, while acupressure acts better on pain, a combination of both is recommended. The findings need further confirmation through a randomized clinical trial.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it