MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2150746320 · doi:10.2522/ptj.20090330

A Clinical Trial of Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation in Improving Quadriceps Muscle Strength and Activation Among Women With Mild and Moderate Osteoarthritis

2010· article· en· W2150746320 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Riann M. Palmieri‐Smith, Abbey C. Thomas, Carrie Karvonen‐Gutierrez, MaryFran Sowers

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Therapy · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlanarian Biology and Electrostimulation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOsteoarthritisPhysical therapyRandomized controlled trialPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMuscle strengthSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) has demonstrated efficacy in improving quadriceps muscle strength (force-generating capacity) and activation following knee replacement and ligamentous reconstruction. Yet, data are lacking to establish the efficacy of NMES in people with evidence of early radiographic osteoarthritis. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether NMES is capable of improving quadriceps muscle strength and activation in women with mild and moderate knee osteoarthritis. DESIGN: This study was a randomized controlled trial. METHODS: Thirty women with radiographic evidence of mild or moderate knee osteoarthritis were randomly assigned to receive either no treatment (standard of care) or NMES treatments 3 times per week for 4 weeks. The effects of NMES on quadriceps muscle strength and activation were evaluated upon study enrollment, as well as at 5 and 16 weeks after study enrollment, which represent 1 and 12 weeks after cessation of NMES among the treated participants. The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index and a 40-foot (12.19-m) walk test were used at each testing session. RESULTS: Improvements in quadriceps muscle strength or activation were not realized for the women in the intervention group. Quadriceps muscle strength and activation were similar across testing sessions for both groups. LIMITATIONS: Women were enrolled based on radiographic evidence of osteoarthritis, not symptomatic osteoarthritis, which could have contributed to our null finding. A type II statistical error may have been committed despite an a priori power calculation. The assessor and the patients were not blinded to group assignment, which may have introduced bias into the study. CONCLUSIONS: Four weeks of NMES delivered to women with mild and moderate osteoarthritis and mild strength deficits was insufficient to induce gains in quadriceps muscle strength or activation. Future research is needed to examine the dose-response relationship for NMES in people with early radiographic evidence of 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations72
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical TherapySame topicPlanarian Biology and ElectrostimulationFrench-language works237,207