The effectiveness of whirlpool for patients with neuropathic pain due to knee osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim: Both neuropathic and nociceptive mechanisms may contribute to the OA pain experience. The aim of this study is to determine the efficacy of warm whirlpool on pain, disability, quality of life (QoL) and sleep for patients with neuropathic pain. Methods: This is a randomized, placebo controlled prospective study. Sixty patients with neuropathic pain due to knee OA were included and randomized into two groups. Group 1 (n=30) were treated with warm whirlpool and Group 2 (n=30) were treated with placebo for 20 minutes during 15 sessions. Patients were evaluated according to pain, knee range of motions (ROM), quality of life (QoL) and sleep quality. The primer outcome measure was pain severity and was assessed using a visual analogue scale (VAS) and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC). WOMAC disability and functional scores for functional ability, Short Form-36 Health Survey (SF-36) for QoL, Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) for sleep, DN4 for neuropathic pain were used for assessments. Patients were evaluated at baseline and the end of the 15 day intervention. Results: At the end of the therapy, there were statistically significant improvements in SF-36, PSQI, DN4 and knee ROM (active and passive) scores (p<0.05) for both groups. Also there were a statistically significant improvement for SF-36 scores except for general health score, PSQI and DN4 scores between groups (p<0.05);but this improvement was not statistically significant for VAS, WOMAC, SF-36 general health score and knee ROM between groups (p>0.05). Conclusion: Whirlpool provided significant improvements in QoL, sleep, neuropathic pain and disability for patients with neuropathic pain due to knee OA.
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 | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".