Effect of virgin olive oil versus piroxicam phonophoresis on exercise-induced anterior knee pain.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The main purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of virgin olive oil phonophoresis on female athletes' anterior knee pain (AKP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A double blinded randomized clinical trial was conducted. Ninety-three female athletes suffering from AKP voluntarily participated in this study. Patients were randomly assigned into olive oil (n=31), piroxicam (n=31) or base gel phonophoresis (n=31) groups. At the baseline visit, the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) questionnaire was filled by subjects who were then treated with olive oil, piroxicam or pure phonophoresis for 12 sessions. After 6 and 12 sessions of physiotherapy, subjects filled the questionnaire again. Main outcomes were significant improvement in pain, stiffness, physical function, and total WOMAC scores. RESULTS: Although, there was a significant reduction in symptoms of AKP at the end of the therapy in all groups (p<0.05), but in olive oil group, this improvement was seen after 6 sessions of treatment (p<0.001). A significant difference between olive oil group and piroxicam and/or phonophoresis group was observed after 6 sessions of therapy (p<0.05). CONCLUSION: It could be proposed that phonophoresis with virgin olive oil is as effective as piroxicam gel on lowering WOMAC scores of AKP in female athletes and also has several beneficial properties including faster effect and shorter duration of therapy. The exact mechanism of beneficial action of virgin olive oil on AKP is not clear and requires further studies.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".