Comparison of the effect of Western-made unloading knee brace with physical therapy in Asian patients with medial compartment knee osteoarthritis—A preliminary report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the effect of unloading knee brace with physical therapy (PT) in Asian patients with osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee. METHOD: This is a non-random, two-group comparative study. Patients with medial compartment knee OA (n = 41) were assigned to either the brace group (n = 20) or PT group (n = 21). Patients in the brace group were fitted with an unloading knee brace for three months and the PT group received a 60-min session of physiotherapy over the affected knee, three times a week, for three months. The primary outcome measures were the pain visual analogue scale (VAS) and the Western Ontario McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC); the second outcome measures were the 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) and patient's satisfaction. The patients were evaluated at baseline, and at one month and three months. RESULTS: Group comparison showed no significant difference regarding pain VAS, WOMAC, SF-36, and patient's satisfaction, except stiffness in WOMAC (P = .006) and social functioning in SF-36 (P = .007). Time and group interaction revealed significant differences only in general health (P = .007) and mental health (P = .006) of SF-36. Within-group comparison found that pain VAS and WOMAC decreased significantly at one months and three months in both groups. CONCLUSION: The effect of brace fitting in patients with knee OA was similar to that of physical therapy. A Western-made unloading knee brace is acceptable in some Asian people with knee OA. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02712710.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".