Comparative impact of nonpharmacological interventions on pain of knee osteoarthritis patients reporting at a tertiary care institution: A randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Nonpharmacological interventions (NPIs) have been advocated for knee osteoarthritis (KOA). There are many gaps in the evidence to their efficacy in India. AIMS: The study aims to compare the impact of two packages of NPIs on various outcome variables of KOA patients. SETTINGS AND DESIGN: This was a randomized controlled trial in a tertiary care hospital. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: = 123) of KOA patients aged 40-65 years. Stratified block randomization was done for mild or moderate KOA into two groups. Group "A" patients received a package of NPIs including a set of supervised exercise sessions, kinesthesia, balance, and agility (KBA), meditation, weight reduction advice, and weekly telephonic reminders. Group "B" patients received the same package except for KBA & meditation. Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), visual analog scale (VAS) and performance-based measures were measured. ANALYSIS: -test and repeat measures ANOVA were undertaken. RESULTS: = 0.055, F = 3.28) at 12 months. CONCLUSION: Both packages of NPIs were effective in providing relief in symptoms. No specific benefit of KBA or meditation was seen except for 50FWT.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".