Comparison of efficacy of mulligan's mobilization with movement with maitland mobilization along with conventional therapy in the patients with knee osteoarthritis: A randomized clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective: The objective of this study is to determine the outcome and efficacy of Mulligan's mobilization with movement (MWM) with Maitland mobilization along with conventional therapy in the patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA). Materials and Methods: A randomized controlled trial study was performed at the Department of Physiotherapy, Mayo Hospital, Lahore, Pakistan. Sixty-two patients were selected for the study. MWM was introduced in half of the patients and Maitland mobilizations in the second half for 2 weeks. The goniometry, visual analog scale (VAS), knee range of motion (ROM), and Western Ontario McMaster OA (WOMAC) Index for knee OA were the assessment tools used to assess all patients before and after 2 weeks of intervention. Paired sample t-test was used for analysis of results. Results: The mean pre- and postdifferences in MWM group were 4.06 ± 0.99, 10.19 ± 3.87, and 19.41 ± 7.58 for VAS, ROM flexion, and WOMAC Index, respectively, while the pre- and postmean difference values for Maitland mobilization group were 3.355 ± 1.05, 10.19 ± 5.5, and 12.28 ± 7.029 for VAS, ROM flexion, and WOMAC Index, respectively. The mean differences of both treatment interventions individually were significant and showed that both were clinically effective in treating the patients of knee OA. Conclusion: It was concluded that patients in both groups showed improvement in pain, ROM, and functions.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".