MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2964819542 · doi:10.1177/0269215519866494

Effects of therapeutic ultrasound for knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2019· review· en· W2964819542 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yu Wu, Shibo Zhu, Zenghui Lv, Shun-Li Kan, Qiuli Wu, Wenye Song, Guangzhi Ning, Shiqing Feng

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Rehabilitation · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicUltrasound and Hyperthermia Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsMeta-analysisOsteoarthritisMedicineSystematic reviewPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPhonophoresisPhysical therapyMEDLINEUltrasoundInternal medicineRadiologyAlternative medicinePathologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: To assess the effectiveness and safety of therapeutic ultrasound with sham ultrasound on pain relief and functional improvement in knee osteoarthritis patients. As phonophoresis is a unique therapeutic ultrasound, we also compared the effects of phonophoresis with conventional non-drug ultrasound. Data sources: PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials from inception up to June 2019. Review methods: Randomized controlled trials comparing therapeutic ultrasound with sham ultrasound in knee osteoarthritis patients were included. Phonophoresis in the experimental and control groups were compared through conventional ultrasound, and corresponding trials were also included. Two reviewers independently identified eligible studies and extracted data. Risk of bias assessments and therapeutic ultrasound safety assessments were also performed. Results: Fifteen studies including three phonophoresis-related studies with 1074 patients were included. Meta-analyses demonstrated that therapeutic ultrasound significantly relieved pain ( P < 0.00001) and reduced the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) physical function score ( P = 0.03). In addition, therapeutic ultrasound increased the active range of motion ( P < 0.00001) and reduced the Lequesne index ( P < 0.00001). Subgroup analysis of phonophoresis ultrasound illustrated significant differences on the visual analogue scale ( P = 0.009), but no significant differences on WOMAC pain subscales ( P = 0.10), and total WOMAC scores were observed ( P = 0.30). There was no evidence to suggest that ultrasound was unsafe treatment. Conclusions: Therapeutic ultrasound is a safe treatment to relieve pain and improve physical function in patients with knee osteoarthritis. However, phonophoresis does not produce additional benefits to functional improvement, but may relieve pain compared to conventional non-drug ultrasound.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0210.031
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.065
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.313 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations89
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical RehabilitationSame topicUltrasound and Hyperthermia ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207