Efficacy of High-Power Laser in Alleviating Pain and Improving Function of Patients With Patellofemoral Pain Syndrome: A Single-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: In this study, a single-blind and randomized controlled trial (RCT) for assessing the effectiveness of high-power (up to 12 W) laser therapy (HPLT) on patients with patellofemoral pain syndrome (PFPS) was carried out. Methods: Forty-four patients were randomly assigned to two treatment groups by generating random numbers with MATLAB 2014b software, where odd and even numbers were attributed to sham laser group (group A) and actual laser group (group B), respectively. Group B patients underwent HPLT with total dose of 300 J/session for 5 consecutive sessions separated by a 2-day interval. On the other hand, sham laser was applied to group A patients. Both groups had the same exercise therapy programs during the study period (3 months). The exercise therapy program included isometric knee exercise for 3 sets per day and 10 times in each set, with duration of 10 seconds per time and straight leg raise for 15 seconds 10 times a day. The group codes of patients were not revealed to subjects and data analyzer until completion of the study. Kujala, the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and visual analog scale (VAS) questionnaires were chosen as outcome measures. These questionnaires were completed at three points during the study; at the beginning of the study to obtain the pre-therapy conditions and one month and three months after the start of the study to evaluate post-therapy conditions. Results: Two main analyses were conducted: within-group and between-group analyses. Withingroup analyses indicated significant improvements in respect to all measurements where pretherapy and post-therapy comparisons were conducted in both groups (P < 0.05). On the other hand, between-group comparisons did not reveal any statistically significant functional difference between group A and group B regarding the evaluative criteria (P > 0.05) except for pain VAS (P < 0.05). Conclusion: This study indicated that short-term HPLT accompanied by appropriate exercise regimen significantly decreased pain in patients with PFPS. But it was not recommended as an efficient modality in functional improvement. Also, it was observed that, in the short-term period of study, HPLT was a safe modality.
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 | 0.014 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".