Comparative Study of the Effectiveness of Therapeutic Ultrasound vs Interferential Therapy to reduce Pain and improve Functional Ability in Osteoarthritis of Knee
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Many people develop functional limitation due to pain of osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee. Different physiotherapeutic modalities are commonly used to give treatment for patients with OA knee. This study aims to examine the efficacy of therapeutic ultrasound (UST) vs interferential therapy (IFT) to reduce pain and to improve functional ability in OA knee. Thirty subjects with a mean age of 62.55 ± 6.25 years having clinical diagnosis of OA of knee were randomly allocated to two study groups, namely groups I and II, each of 15 patients. Group I received UST and therapeutic exercise and group II received IFT and same therapeutic exercise designed for OA knee, conducted five times a week for 2 weeks. The outcome of this intervention was measured in terms of Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score, pain relief in terms of visual analog scale (VAS), and active range of motion (ROM). It was concluded that IFT could be the better choice of modality than UST in the management of OA of knee. Clinical significance This study helped us to formulate a better therapeutic approach of OA of knee. How to cite this article Das P, Dan MK. Comparative Study of the Effectiveness of Therapeutic Ultrasound vs Interferential Therapy to reduce Pain and improve Functional Ability in Osteoarthritis of Knee. Indian J Phy Med Rehab 2017;28(3):100-105.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".