MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2980625866 · doi:10.1186/s12891-019-2841-4

The effect of mobilization with movement on pain and function in patients with knee osteoarthritis: a randomized double-blind controlled trial

2019· article· en· W2980625866 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hani A. Alkhawajah, Ali Alshami

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Musculoskeletal Disorders · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineWOMACOsteoarthritisRange of motionRandomized controlled trialVisual analogue scalePhysical therapyKnee painOrthopedic surgeryKnee JointPhysical medicine and rehabilitationSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Few studies have investigated the effects of mobilization with movement (MWM) in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA) compared to other procedures. Sham procedures are generally more appropriate control than using no or usual treatments. Moreover, studies investigating the widespread hypoalgesic effects of MWM in patients with knee OA are lacking. The aim was to investigate the effect of MWM on function and pain in patients with knee OA compared to sham MWM. METHODS: This is a randomized double-blind (patients and assessor) controlled trial. Forty adult patients with knee OA of grade II and above were recruited to receive either MWM treatment or sham MWM for the knee. The outcome measures included the following: a visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain, the pressure pain threshold (PPT) test, the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) Index, the timed up and go (TUG) test, knee strength and knee range of motion (ROM). The measurements were taken at baseline, immediately after intervention and 2 days later. RESULTS: Compared with sham MWM, MWM resulted in greater immediate improvement in pain [mean difference (95% CI): - 2.2 (- 2.8, - 1.6)], PPT at both the knee [176 (97, 254)] and shoulder [212 (136, 288)], TUG time [- 1.6 (- 2.1, - 1.1)], knee flexor strength [2.0 (1.3, 2.7)] and extensor strength [5.7 (4.1, 7.2)] and knee flexion ROM [12.8 (9.6, 15.9)] (all, p < 0.001) but not knee extension ROM [- 0.8 (- 1.6, 0.1)] (p = 0.067). After 2 days of intervention, patients who received MWM also demonstrated a greater improvement in pain [- 1.0 (- 1.8, - 0.1)], PPT at the shoulder [107 (40, 175)], TUG time [- 0.9 (- 1.4, - 0.4)], knee flexor strength [0.9 (0.2, 1.7)] and extensor strength [2.9 (2.1, 3.9)] and knee flexion ROM [8.3 (4.7, 11.9)] (all, p ≤ 0.026). However, WOMAC scores and knee extension ROM showed no evidence of change at any stage after intervention (p ≥ 0.067). CONCLUSIONS: MWM provided superior benefits over sham MWM in terms of local and widespread pain, physical function (walking), knee flexion and extension muscle strength and knee flexion ROM for at least 2 days in patients with knee OA. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT02865252 ), registered on August 12, 2016.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0050.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.004
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations86
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Musculoskeletal DisordersSame topicOsteoarthritis Treatment and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207