Ultrasound combined transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (UltraTENS) versus phonophoresis of piroxicam (PhP) in symptomatic knee osteoarthritis: A randomized double-blind, controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ultrasound combined with transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (UltraTENS) and phonophoresis of piroxicam (PhP) are combined modality therapy that frequently used in musculoskeletal pain including knee osteoarthritis (OA). But it is lack of a good clinical trial to prove and compare their effects. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of UltraTENS with PhP on mild to moderate degree of symptomatic knee OA. METHODS: Sixty-one patients (55 women), mean age of 63.4 ± 8.1 y, 50-90 mm VAS of knee pain and Kellgren-Lawrence score of grade I-III were randomly allocated into UltraTENS and PhP (N = 31 and 30, respectively). The UltraTENS group received a combined ultrasound with TENS program and a non-drug gel, whereas the PhP group got an ultrasound program with piroxicam gel and sham TENS. All patients were treated for a total of 10 sessions, consisting of five times per week and 10 min per session. Before and after treatment, patients were evaluated knee pain by using the 100-mm VAS and functional performance by Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) index. RESULTS: The UltraTENS and PhP groups experienced considerable improvement in both VAS and total WOMAC scores post-treatment (P< 0.001). The PhP had better VAS of pain and WOMAC scores but no statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: Results show that UltraTENS and PhP were effective for relieving pain and improve functionality knee OA without significant differences between their effects.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".