Interferential Current Therapy in Patients with Knee Osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of different amplitude-modulated frequencies of interferential current (IFC) and sham IFC on knee osteoarthritis. DESIGN: A randomized and single-blind study was performed on 60 patients diagnosed with knee osteoarthritis. The patients were allocated to three active IFC groups (40, 100, and 180 Hz), and one sham IFC group. Treatments were performed 5 times a week for 3 wks consecutively. Each patient was assessed at the end of the treatments and at the first month using the following measurements: visual analog scale (pain at rest, pain on movement and disability), physician and patient judgments regarding treatment effectiveness, 15-m walking time (in minutes), range of motion (ROM), the Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and paracetamol intake (g/wk). RESULTS: Although there were significant improvements in all variables, except WOMAC stiffness and range of motion, measured in all groups at the end of the treatment and during the follow-up, this improvement was greater in active IFC groups than in the sham group. The improvement in WOMAC stiffness was observed only in active IFC treatment groups (P < 0.05). No significant difference between different amplitude-modulated frequencies of IFC treatments was observed. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated the superiority of the IFC with some advantages on pain and disability outcomes when compared with sham IFC for the management of knee osteoarthritis. However, the effectiveness of different amplitude-modulated frequencies of IFC was not superior when compared with each other.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".