Isometric exercise, acupuncture, and magnet therapy for knee osteoarthritis: randomized clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Knee osteoarthritis is a common disease, particularly in the elderly population. Degenerative disorders of the cartilage cause pain and stiffness in the knee joint. As a result, patients frequently experience limitation in their daily activities. Purpose: To compare the effects of exercise, acupuncture, and magnet therapy on symptoms and physical function among middle-aged and elderly people with knee osteoarthritis. Materials and methods: We carried out a parallel three-arm randomized clinical trial in an outpatient clinic of the Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation at a University Hospital. In total, 60 female patients of age ≥ 40 years with chronic knee osteoarthritis were randomly allocated to one of three groups of isometric exercise, acupuncture, and magnet therapy. The primary outcome measure was subjective pain rated according to the Visual Analog Scale. We also used the Western Ontario McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index for assessing and monitoring the symptoms of knee osteoarthritis in order to evaluate the efficacy of the interventions. An isometric exercise program was prescribed, consisting of three sessions per week for six weeks. Participants in the acupuncture group received three treatment sessions per week for six weeks, each lasting for 30 minutes. For pulsed electro-magnetic field therapy, a total of three 30-minute sessions per week for a period of 6 weeks were administered to each patient. Results: There were no statistically significant differences between the study groups in terms of the outcome measures (all p values > 0.05). However, within-group analyses showed that there were significant differences regarding the clinical outcomes in each group (all p values < 0.05). Conclusion: All three therapeutic modalities are effective and could be used as the first line of treatment for knee osteoarthritis. Moreover, it should be noted that the favorable outcomes remained at least two months after treatment concluded.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".