Efficacy of Periosteal Stimulation Therapy for the Treatment of Osteoarthritis‐Associated Chronic Knee Pain: An Initial Controlled Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To examine the efficacy of periosteal stimulation therapy (PST, osteopuncture) for the treatment of chronic pain associated with advanced knee osteoarthritis. DESIGN: Randomized, controlled clinical trial. SETTING: Outpatient pain clinic. PARTICIPANTS: Eighty-eight community-dwelling older adults with moderate knee pain or greater for 3 months or longer and Kellgren-Lawrence (K-L) grade 2 through 4 radiographic severity (80% had K-L 4). INTERVENTION: Participants were randomized to receive PST or control PST once a week for 6 weeks. MEASUREMENTS: Pain severity and self-reported function (Western Ontario and McMasters University Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC)) and physical performance (Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB)) were assessed at baseline, after the last PST session (post), and 3 months later (follow-up). Pain severity was also assessed monthly using the multidimensional pain inventory short form. RESULTS: Pain was reduced significantly more in the PST group than in the control PST group at post (P=.003; mean WOMAC pain subscale baseline 9.4 vs 6.4) and 1 month later (P<.001), but by 2 months, pain levels had regressed to pre-intervention levels. The group-by-time interaction for the WOMAC function scale was significant at post (P=.04) but not at follow-up (P=.63). No significant group differences were found for the SPPB. Neither analgesic use nor global improvement differed between groups. There were four treatment dropouts. CONCLUSION: PST affords short-term modest pain reduction for older adults with advanced knee OA. Future research should test the effectiveness of booster treatments in sustaining analgesic benefits and of combining PST with therapeutic exercise in ameliorating disability risk.
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".