Laser Acupuncture in Knee Osteoarthritis: A Double-Blind, Randomized Controlled Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects and minimum effective dose of laser acupuncture in knee osteoarthritis (KOA), and to determine if it is superior to placebo treatment (sham) in the evaluation of clinical-functional outcome and quality of life. METHODS: In this randomized, placebo-controlled study, patients with grade 2 and 3 primary KOA were selected. Group I (n = 27) received 904-nm low-level laser irradiation with 10 mW/cm(2) power density, 4 mW output power, 0.4 cm(2) spot size, 0.48 J dose per session, and 120-sec treatment time on the medial side of the knee to the acupuncture point Sp9. Group II (n = 25) received placebo-laser therapy at the same place on the same point. Patients in both of the groups had treatment 5 days per week (total duration of therapy was 10 days) and 20 min per day. The study was comprised of a 2-week (10-session) intervention. Participants were evaluated before treatment (baseline), after treatment (2nd week), and at the 12th week. In this double-blind study, a blind examiner carried out all outcome assessments. The main outcome measures were as follows: pain on movement (pVAS), 50-foot walking time (50 foot w), knee circumference (KC), medial tenderness score (MTS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index (WOMAC), and Nottingham Health Profile (NHP). RESULTS: Statistically significant improvement was observed in PVAS, 50 foot w, and KC in group 1. In Group II, statistically significant improvement was observed in PVAS, 50 foot w, and WOMAC. When groups were compared with each other, the improvement observed in KC was superior in Group I at the 2(nd) week (p = 0.005). CONCLUSION: Laser acupuncture was found to be effective only in reducing periarticular swelling when compared with placebo laser.
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 | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".