Comparative effects of proprioceptive and isometric exercises on pain intensity and difficulty in patients with knee osteoarthritis: A randomised control study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The study compared the effects of isometric quadriceps exercise and proprioceptive exercise on pain, joint stiffness and physical difficulties of patients with knee osteoarthritis. SUBJECTS: Forty-five patients with history of knee osteoarthritis were randomly allocated into two groups; A with 23 subjects and B with 22 subjects. METHODS: All subjects received infrared radiation for 20 minutes and kneading massage with methyl salicylate ointment. Group A underwent proprioceptive exercises while Group B had isometric quadriceps exercise. Each exercise session lasted for 10 minutes according to standard protocol, twice in a week for six weeks. Pre-treatment, 3rd week and 6th week pain intensity, joint stiffness and physical difficulties were assessed using Western Ontario McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) questionnaire. Statistical package for social sciences (SPSS) version 17 was used to analyse the data while descriptive and inferential statistics were used to summarise the result. RESULTS: Proprioceptive exercises reduced pain intensity significantly (F = 4.76; p = 0.00) at 6th week with effect size of 2.79, and physical difficulty (F = 3.69; p < 0.04) with effect size of 7.53 better than isometric exercises. There was a significant reduction in the pain intensity (F = 12.08; p < 0.001), and physical difficulties (F = 3.69, p = 0.04) in pre-treatment, 3rd week and 6th week in both Group A and B. CONCLUSION: Both exercises are effective but proprioceptive exercises may be more effective in the management of patients with knee osteoarthritis (KOA) than isometric exercises.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".