Comparison of effectiveness of forward and backward walking on pain, physical function, and quality of life in subjects with osteoarthritis of knee
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context: Walking, both forward and backward, is found to be effective for reducing pain in subjects with osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee and improving physical function and quality of life (QOL). Aims: This study aims to determine and compare the effects of forward walking (FW) and backward walking (BW) on pain, physical function, and QOL in subjects with OA knee. Settings and Design: Quasi-experimental study set up at general hospital, Ahmedabad, India. Subjects and Methods: Thirty subjects >40 years diagnosed as having bilateral OA knee according to American College of Rheumatology criteria having indoor and outdoor walking ability without aids were included in this study. Group A and B subjects received FW and BW respectively for 10 min in addition to conventional treatment thrice daily for 2 weeks. Group C received conventional treatment in the form of hot water fomentation and exercises. Exercises comprised of static quadriceps, short arc terminal extension of the knee, ankle toe movements, straight leg raises, knee flexion and extension, proprioceptive exercises in the form of lunges, weight shifts, partial squats and balance training on the balance board and stretching of hamstrings, tendo-Achilles and rectus femoris muscles. Statistical Analysis Used: SPSS 16.0 (IBM Corporation). Parametric tests were used. The level of significance was 5%. Results: The results showed improvement in all the outcome measures within all the three groups. However, there was no statistically significant difference between the groups except Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC). Visual analog scale (VAS) at rest on the right side in all three groups and on the left side in Group A as well as in scores of VAS at activity on both the sides (P < 0.05) and no improvement in VAS at rest on the left side in Groups B and C (P > 0.05). Improvement in WOMAC scores within all the 3 groups (P < 0.05) and SF-36 (P < 0.05). No statistically significant difference between the groups for VAS at rest (left P = 0.919, right P = 0.823) or activity (left P = 0.706, right P = 0.052) on both the sides and SF-36 scores (P > 0.05). Statistically significant difference between the groups for WOMAC (P = 0.043), Group A was better than Group C (P = 0.043). Conclusions: FW and BW along with conventional therapy are equally effective and not better than conventional treatment alone in reducing pain and improving physical function and QOL.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".