Efficacy of Mobilization with Movement for Patients with Limited Dorsiflexion after Ankle Sprain: A Crossover Trial
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
Purpose: Although a primary goal of many manual therapy techniques is to improve joint range of motion (ROM), efficacy studies evaluating the effect of treatment on ROM are limited. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of a talocrural joint mobilization-with-movement (MWM) technique on dorsiflexion ROM in participants demonstrating decreased range following lateral ankle sprain. Method: Twenty-three participants who had sustained unilateral ankle sprains within the past two years and exhibited a restriction in weight-bearing dorsiflexion participated in the study. We used a crossover design with random assignment to either a sham mobilization or an MWM technique. One week later, participants returned and received the alternate technique. Dorsiflexion was assessed using a weight-bearing lunge test. Results: The change in dorsiflexion following the MWM technique (0.63 6 0.89 cm) was significantly greater (p 5 0.02) than the change following the sham technique (0.18 6 0.35 cm). Conclusions: These findings suggest that a talocurual MWM improves ankle dorsiflexion immediately following treatment. Future research evaluating the effectiveness of multiple treatments on functional outcomes is warranted.
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 | 0.000 | 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 it