Effects of Short Wave Diathermy Added on Dextrose Prolotherapy Injections in Osteoarthritis of the Knee
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To show the effects of short wave diathermy (SWD) added on prolotherapy injections in osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee on pain, physical functioning, and quality of life. Design: This is a single-blinded randomized controlled study. Setting: Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Department of a university hospital. Subjects: Sixty-three patients with OA of the knee with Kellgren–Lawrence class 2 or 3 were included in the study. Methods: Patients were randomized into two groups, first being dextrose prolotherapy+SWD and the second being dextrose prolotherapy with sham SWD. Patients were injected with dextrose prolotherapy solutions in the beginning, third, and sixth week of the study, for a total of three times, and took 20 min of SWD after injection (true or sham). Outcome measures: Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for pain, and Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) were applied before, after (sixth week), and at the third month of treatment. Results: Both groups showed improvements in VAS, WOMAC, and SF-36 scores (p < 0.05). Between-group analyses showed no significant differences (p > 0.05). Conclusions: This study shows that prolotherapy is effective for pain, functionality, and quality of life in patients with OA of the knee. The effects of additional SWD require more evidence. More studies of higher quality are required to make a statement.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".