Effect of Laser Therapy on Chronic Osteoarthritis of the Knee in Older Subjects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Osteoarthritis (OA) is a common degenerative joint disease particularly in older subjects. It is usually associated with pain, restricted range of motion, muscle weakness, difficulties in daily living activities and impaired quality of life. To determine the effects of adding two different intensities of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) to exercise training program on pain severity, joint stiffness, physical function, isometric muscle strength, range of motion of the knee, and quality of life in older subjects with knee OA. METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned into three groups. They received 16 sessions, 2 sessions/week for 8 weeks. Group-I: 18 patients were treated with a laser dose of 6 J/cm(2) with a total dose of 48 J. Group-II: 18 patients were treated with a laser dose of 3 J/cm(2) with a total dose of 27 J. Group-III: 15 patients were treated with laser without emission as a placebo. All patients received same exercise training program including stretching and strengthening exercises. Patients were evaluated before and after intervention by visual analogue scale (VAS), the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) index for quality of life, handheld dynamometer and universal goniometer. RESULTS: T test revealed that there was a significant reduction in VAS and pain intensity, an increase in isometric muscle strength and range of motion of the knee as well as increase in physical functional ability in three treatment groups. Also analysis of variance (ANOVA) proved significant differences among them and the post hoc tests (LSD) test showed the best improvements for patients of the first group. CONCLUSION: It can be concluded that addition of LLLT to exercise training program is more effective than exercise training alone in the treatment of older patients with chronic knee OA and the rate of improvement may be dose dependent, as with 6 J/cm(2) or 3 J/cm(2).
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".