Short-term cryotherapy did not substantially reduce pain and had unclear effects on physical function and quality of life in people with knee osteoarthritis: a randomised trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Does short-term cryotherapy improve pain, function and quality of life in people with knee osteoarthritis (OA)? DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial with concealed allocation, blinded assessment of some outcomes, and intention-to-treat analysis. PARTICIPANTS: People living in the community with knee OA. INTERVENTIONS: The experimental group received cryotherapy, delivered as packs of crushed ice applied to the knee with mild compression. The control group received the same regimen but with sham packs filled with sand. The interventions were applied once a day for 4 consecutive days. OUTCOME MEASURES: Participants were assessed at baseline and on the day after the 4-day intervention period. The primary outcome was pain intensity according to a visual analogue scale. Secondary outcomes were baseline to post-intervention changes according to the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome; Timed Up and Go test; and 30-Second Chair to Stand test. RESULTS: Sixty participants were randomised into the experimental group (n = 30) or the control group (n = 30). Twenty-nine participants from each group completed the trial. The mean between-group difference in change in pain severity was -0.8 cm (95% CI -1.6 to 0.1), where negative values favour the experimental group. This result did not reach the nominated smallest worthwhile effect of 1.75 cm. The secondary outcomes had less-precise estimates, with confidence intervals that spanned worthwhile, trivial and mildly harmful effects. CONCLUSION: Short-term cryotherapy was not superior to a sham intervention in terms of relieving pain or improving function and quality of life in people with knee OA. Although cryotherapy is considered to be a widely used resource in clinical practice, this study does not suggest that it has an important short-term effect, when compared with a sham control, as a non-pharmacological treatment for people with knee osteoarthritis. REGISTRATION: NCT02725047.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".