MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2972385423 · doi:10.1016/j.jphys.2019.08.004

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

2019· article· en· W2972385423 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of physiotherapy · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicExercise and Physiological Responses
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo
KeywordsCryotherapyMedicineOsteoarthritisPhysical therapyQuality of life (healthcare)Randomized controlled trialPsychological interventionVisual analogue scaleConfidence intervalKnee painRegimenIntervention (counseling)Physical medicine and rehabilitationSurgeryAlternative medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.660
Threshold uncertainty score0.504

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.295 · 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