Long-term results of a randomized, controlled, double-blind study of low-level laser therapy before exercises in knee osteoarthritis: laser and exercises in knee osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess the long-term effects of low-level laser therapy (LLLT), in combination with strengthening exercises in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee. DESIGN: Follow-up results at three and six months in a previously published randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. SETTING: Specialist Rehabilitation Services. SUBJECTS: Forty participants of both genders, aged 50-75 years with knee osteoarthritis grade 2-4 on Kellgren-Lawrence scale. INTERVENTION: The LLLT group received 10 LLLT treatments with invisible infrared laser (904 nm, 3 Joules/point) over three weeks followed by an eight-week supervised strengthening exercise program. The placebo LLLT group received identical treatment, but the infrared laser output was disabled. MAIN MEASURES: Pain on a visual analogue scale, paracetamol consumption, and osteoarthritis severity measured by the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and Lequesne Index. RESULTS: The new data obtained during the follow-up period showed that all outcomes remained stable and there were no significant differences between the groups at three and six months. However, daily consumption of rescue analgesics (paracetamol) was significantly lower in the LLLT group throughout the follow-up period, ending at a group difference of 0.45 vs. 3.40 units ( P < 0.001) at six months follow-up. We conclude that within the limitations of this small study, the previously reported improvement after LLLT plus exercise was maintained for a period of six months. CONCLUSION: We find that the immediate post-intervention improvements from LLLT plus strengthening exercises were maintained for six months.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".