MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2123373414 · doi:10.1177/0269215512459062

A randomized controlled trial on the efficacy of intermittent and continuous traction for patients with knee osteoarthritis

2012· article· en· W2123373414 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mahmut Alpaycı, Yasemin Özkan, Levent Yazmalar, Özcan Hız, Levent Ediz

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Rehabilitation · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineWOMACOsteoarthritisRandomized controlled trialPhysical therapyDiathermyRange of motionVisual analogue scaleSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy of intermittent and continuous traction in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis. DESIGN: A randomized, controlled, observer-blind seven-week trial. SETTING: Hospital-based outpatient practice. SUBJECTS: Ninety-eight patients with stage 3 knee osteoarthritis according to Kellgren-Lawrence radiological rating scale. INTERVENTIONS: All 98 patients were randomly assigned to three treatment groups, for three weeks (weekends excluded). The control group (n=30, mean age: 59.30±8.16) received hot pack and short wave diathermy; the intermittent group (n=30, mean age: 58.20±7.78) received hot pack, short wave diathermy and intermittent traction; and the continuous group (n=30, mean age: 57.97±9.53) received hot pack, short wave diathermy and continuous traction. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: The values of the Turkish version of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), visual analog scale, and knee passive range of motion were measured at baseline, three-week and seven-week follow-up. RESULTS: Compared with baseline at weeks 3 and 7, all the outcome measures, except range of motion, were significantly reduced in all groups (all P≤0.001). In terms of the change data from baseline to week 3, both traction groups were significantly superior to the control in the WOMAC physical function scores. Considering the change data from baseline to week 7, both traction groups were significantly superior to the control in the pain scores, physical function and total scores, while only the continuous group was significantly better than the control in the stiffness scores (control: 1.17 ± 1.64; continuous: 2.38 ± 1.44) (P=0.014). Compared with baseline at weeks 3 and 7, range of motion values significantly increased in both traction groups (P<0.05) but not in the control (P>0.05). However, there were no significant differences among the three groups considering the change data from baseline to week 7 in range of motion values (P=0.300). CONCLUSIONS: Joint traction was found to be beneficial for the improvement of pain and physical function loss related to knee osteoarthritis.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.146
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.303 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations21
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical RehabilitationSame topicOsteoarthritis Treatment and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207