Acutherapy for Knee Osteoarthritis Relief in the Elderly: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to investigate the effects of various acutherapies on knee osteoarthritis (KOA) relief in the elderly. METHODS: Five databases were accessed from inception to July 2017 for searching randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on acutherapy for KOA relief in the elderly. Data were pooled after trial quality assessment for meta-analysis. Outcomes were the scores of knee pain, knee stiffness, and physical function accessed by Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) Index. RESULTS: 17 RCTs including 4774 subjects were included. The results indicated that acutherapy significantly affected knee pain (standardized mean difference, i.e., SMD = - 0.73, [95% CI, -0.98 to -0.47], P <0.001), knee stiffness (SMD = -0.66, [95%CI, -0.85 to -0.47], P <0.001), and physical function (SMD = -1.56, [95%CI, -2.17 to -0.95], P<0.001) when compared with control condition without intervention of any acutherapy. Moreover, acutherapy was more effective than corresponding sham (placebo) intervention applied on nonacupoints (SMD = -0.16, [95% CI, -0.32 to -0.01], P = 0.04). However, no significant differences were found on treatment effects between acutherapy and sham acutherapy at the same acupoints (SMD= - 0.09, [95%CI, -0.40 to 0.21], P = 0.55). CONCLUSIONS: Acutherapy was an effective approach for KOA relief in the elderly. The selection of acupoints position could be a crucial factor that influences the treatment efficacy of acutherapy.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".