Effectiveness of Lumbar Mobilizations in Subjects with Osteoarthritis of Knee
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Osteoarthritis is a disease process involving cartilage destruction (articular), bone thickening (subchondral) and new bone formation. Physiotherapy management includes thermotherapy, Cryotherapy, electrotherapy, therapeutic and manual therapy. Objective: The objective of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness of Lumbar mobilization along with conventional Physiotherapy in osteoarthritis of Knee patients. Methodology: It was a Randomized Controlled Trial in which 32 patients diagnosed with osteoarthritis of the knee were randomly assigned into the Experimental Group (Lumbar mobilization with Conventional Physiotherapy) and the Control group (Conventional Physiotherapy). Both groups received three treatment sessions per week, a total of 06 sessions. An assessment was made for each group at the first visit and at end of program using Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index scale, Numeric Pain Rating Scale, Goniometer, Manual Muscle Testing as assessment tools. Results: Both groups showed significant improvement in Physical Activity Level, Pain, Knee Flexion, Hamstring Length and Quadriceps Strength. Patient with moderate Kellgren & Lawrence grading in both group showed a marked reduction in pain, improvement in disability, Knee Flexion, Hamstring length, and Quadriceps strength (p > 0.005). The experimental group showed more improvement but the difference was not statistically significant (p < 0.005). Conclusion: The difference between the two groups was not significant. So, it is recommended that conventional physiotherapy including electrotherapeutic agents, manual therapy and therapeutic exercises is enough for managing of knee Osteoarthritis. Keywords: Knee Osteoarthritis, Lumbar Spine, Lumber Mobilization
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".