The effects of electroanalgesia on knee osteoarthritis: study protocol for a randomized, triple‐blind, placebo‐controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and objectives: Osteoarthritis of the knee is considered the major cause of pain and dysfunction of the motor apparatus and mainly affects female individuals over 60 years. Electrotherapy presents a reasonable level of evidence for pain control and inconsistent results. Thus, this study aims to verify the efficacy of electroanalgesia, using different currents, for knee osteoarthritis. Subjects and methods: This is a randomized, triple-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial. Individuals will be randomly divided into four groups, and subjected to four different types of currents: transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation in Group 1, bipolar interferential current in Group 2, Aussie in Group 3, and placebo in Group 4, presenting different modulations and 20 minutes of intervention each. Patients have been recruited since August 2017. The primary outcome measures will be analyzed in June 2020 and the study will finish in August 2020. Protocol version: 1.0. This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of University of Brasilia on July 18, 2017 (CAEE: 62256516.2.0000.0030). Outcome measures: Primary and secondary outcomes will be analyzed at baseline, 1, 3 and 6 months after the start of the study. The primary outcome is pain assessed by numerical verbal scale, pain-pressure threshold, and brief pain inventory. The secondary outcomes are function and quality of life (including Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, The Medical Outcomes Study 36-item Short-Form Health Survey, Timed Get-Up-and-Go test, 30-second Sit-to-Stand test, Stair-ascend test, 6-minute walk test, 40-meter fast-walk test). Discussion: We hope to provide evidence for finding suitable electroanalgesia on knee osteoarthritis. Trial registration: Registered in the Brazilian Clinical Trials Registry (ReBEC) (RBR-875zsw) on November 24, 2017.
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 | 0.032 | 0.221 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".