The Effects of a Multimodal Rehabilitation Program on Symptoms and Ground-Reaction Forces in Runners With Patellofemoral Pain Syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Patellofemoral pain (PFP) is one of the most frequent running-related injuries. However, few interventions taking into consideration the specificity of running have been shown to be effective in runners with PFP. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of a multimodal rehabilitation program including lower-limb-strengthening/ motor-control exercises, advice on running biomechanics, and symptoms management on symptoms, strength, and ground-reaction forces in runners with PFP. DESIGN: Pre- to post- quasi-experimental. SETTING: Gait-analysis laboratory and private physical therapy clinic. PARTICIPANTS: 21 runners with PFP (34.1 ± 6.0 y old, symptoms duration 38.1 ± 45.5 mo). INTERVENTION: An 8-wk multimodal rehabilitation program including lower-limb- and core-strengthening and motor-control exercises, as well as advice on running gait and symptoms management. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The Activities of Daily Living Scale of the Knee Outcome Survey (KOS-ADLS) questionnaire and visual analog scales for usual pain (VAS-U), worst pain (VAS-W), and pain during running (VAS-R) were used to assess changes in symptoms and function. Vertical ground-reaction forces (VGRF) during running and lower-limb isometric strength were also measured. RESULTS: Statistically and clinically significant improvements (P < .001) were reported on KOS-ADLS (+17.8 pts), VAS-U (-19.2 pts), VAS-W (-28.7 pts), and VAS-R (-32.2 pts) after the intervention. No significant changes in isometric strength were observed. The instantaneous vertical loading rate was decreased after the intervention (P = .002), and this reduction was correlated with changes in KOS-ADLS scores (P = .028). CONCLUSION: This multimodal intervention was successful in reducing pain and improving function of runners with PFP. However, no significant changes in lower-limb strength were observed. It appears that changes in VGRF combined with appropriate training advice could explain the clinical outcomes.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".