A STUDY ON THE EFFICACY OF PATELLAR TAPING FOR KNEE OSTEOARTHRITIS AS COMPARED TO CONVENTIONAL PHYSICAL THERAPY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Taping has been successfully used by physiotherapists in management of sports injuries. It has been proposed that it can be used to treat degenerative joint disease like osteoarthritis however there is a lack of evidence. Purpose: To compare the effectiveness of taping technique along with conventional physical therapy versus conventional physical therapy alone in patients with patellofemoral joint osteoarthritis. Methods: Thirty subjects with mean (SD) age of 55±6 years were randomized into 2 groups. Subjects in group A were treated with McConnell taping technique along with ultrasound therapy and supervised exercise protocol while subjects in group B were treated with ultrasound therapy and supervised exercise protocol. The outcome measures were Visual Analogue Scale (VAS); Western Ontario McMaster Universities index (WOMAC), Timed Up and Go test (TUG) and Timed Stair Ambulation Test (TSAT) which were assessed prior and after 2 weeks of intervention. Results: Both the groups showed significant improvement in pain scores. Between groups comparison found that group A displayed statistically significant improvement in terms of pain intensity, WOMAC score, TUG and TSAT. Conclusion: Patients in taping group had greater gains in attaining functional abilities and pain relief compared to conventional group, though there was no significant difference in improvement in timed stair ambulation test between the two groups. Therefore, application of taping can be considered beneficial for pain relief and functional ability improvement in subjects with patellofemoral joint osteoarthritis.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".