Comparison of the Effects of Pulse Electromagnetic Field Therapy and Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation Therapy on Pain and Functionality in Knee Osteoarthritis: Randomized Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A Am ma aç ç: : Diz osteoartrit tanısı almış hastalarda yüzeyel sıcak ve diatermi tedavilerine ek olarak uygulanan transkutanöz elektriksel sinir stimülasyon (TENS) ile yüzeyel sıcak ve diatermi tedavilerine ek olarak uygulanan pulse elektromanyetik alan (PEMF) tedavisinin ağrı ve fonksiyonel durum üzerine etkilerini karşılaştırmaktır.G Ge er re eç ç v ve e Y Yö ön nt te em ml le er r: : Çalışmaya 48 semptomatik diz osteoartitli hasta dâhil edildi.Hastalar, kapalı zarf yöntemi ile TENS (n=24) ve PEMF (n=24) grupları olarak ikiye ayrıldı.Birinci gruba 100 Hz frekansta, 30 dakika/seans TENS uygulandı.İkinci gruba ise 50 Hz frekansta, 60 mikrotesla şiddet ile 24 dakika/seans PEMF uygulandı.Her iki gruba da iki hafta boyunca, haftada beş gün, günde bir seans yüzeyel sıcak (sıcak paket, sıcak toleransa göre, 20 dakika/seans) ve diatermi (ultrason 1,5 W/cm 2 6 dakika/seans) uygulandı.Değerlendirmeler başlangıçta ve tedavi sonunda yapıldı.Sonuç ölçümleri olarak, vizüel analog skala (VAS) (0-100), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) ve Lequesne Skalası kullanıldı.B Bu ul lg gu ul la ar r: : Her iki grupta da VAS, WOMAC indeks ve Lequesne skala skorunda tedavi sonrasında tedavi öncesine göre anlamlı düzelme izlendi (p<0.05).Tedavi öncesi ve tedavi sonrası ölçüm değerleri farkının gruplar arası karşılaştırılmasında, TENS ve PEMF grupları arasında VAS (p=0,109), WOMAC (p=0,427) ve Lequesne (p=0,264) skorlarına göre istatistiksel olarak anlamlı fark bulunmadı.S So on nu uç ç: : Çalışmamız konvansiyonel tedaviye ek olarak uygulanan TENS ve PEMF'nin her ikisinin de diz OA semptomlarını iyileştirmede etkili olduğunu göstermiştir.PEMF ve TENS'nin benzer etki düzeyine sahip olduğu saptanmıştır.A An na ah h t ta ar r K Ke e l li i m me e l le er r: : Diz; osteoartrit; pulse elektromanyetik alan; TENS A AB BS S T TR RA AC CT T O Ob bj je ec ct ti iv ve e: : To compare the effects of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) versus pulse electromagnetic field (PEMF) therapies, when applied in addition to the superficial heat and diathermy treatments, on pain and functionality in patients diagnosed with knee osteoarthritis.M Ma at te er ri ia al l a an nd d M Me et th ho od ds s: : Forty-eight patients with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis were included in the study.Patients were randomly assigned into TENS (n=24) and PEMF (n=24) using a closed envelope method.The first group received 100 Hz frequency of TENS treatment for 30 min/session.The second group received 50 Hz frequency and 60 microtesla intensity of PEMF treatment for 24 min/session.Both groups received superficial heat (hot pack, based on the hot tolerance 20 min/session) and diathermy (ultrasound, 1.5 W/cm 2 and 6 min/session) treatments in one session daily for 5 days a week.Evaluations were performed at the beginning and at the end of the treatments.Visual analoguescale (VAS; 0-100), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and Lequesne Scale were used as outcome measurements.R Re es su ul lt ts s: : In both groups, VAS, WOMAC index and Lequesne scale scores improved after the treatment (p<0.05).When the pre and post treatment changes were compare between TENS and PEMF groups, VAS (p=0.109),WOMAC (p=0.427) and Lequesne (p=0.264)scores were similar to each other.C Co on nc cl lu us si io on n: : The results of the current study demonstrated that both TENS and PEMF treatments were effective for ameliorating the osteoarthritis symptoms when applied in addition to the conventional therapies.The results also indicated that both TENS and PEMF treatments displayed similar 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 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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".