Clinical effectiveness of patella mobilisation therapy versus a waiting list control for knee osteoarthritis: a protocol for a pragmatic randomised clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) is a common, disabling and costly medical condition. The patellofemoral joint is a critical source of pain in individuals with KOA, and coexistence of patellofemoral osteoarthritis (PFOA) and tibiofemoral osteoarthritis (TFOA) is sometimes observed. The identification of subgroups with PFOA and customised interventions to correct underlying pathomechanics is beneficial for individuals with KOA. This study aims to evaluate whether a clinic-based patella mobilisation therapy (PMT) leads to significant improvement in pain, physical function and quality of life of individuals with KOA. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A total of 208 participants with coexistence of PFOA and TFOA will be recruited. A pragmatic randomised clinical trial will be conducted, and participants will be randomised into the PMT and waiting list groups. For the PMT group, three manual mobilisation sessions, along with home-based vastus medialis oblique muscle exercise, will be conducted at 2-month intervals. The waiting list group will continue to receive their usual care, and as an incentive the waiting list group will be offered PMT after the study period is over. The primary outcome is the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain subscale, and secondary outcomes include the WOMAC function and stiffness subscales, scores for objective physical function tests (the 30 s chair stand, 40-metre fast-paced walk test, the Timed Up and Go Test), and the EuroQol-5D scores. All outcomes will be evaluated at baseline and 6 months using intention-to-treat and incorporating covariate analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval has been obtained (CREC no: 2014.379). Results of the trial will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ChiCTR-IPC-15006618; Pre-results.
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 | 0.064 | 0.061 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.057 | 0.009 |
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".