A randomized controlled trial on the efficacy of intermittent and continuous traction for patients with knee osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".