The effect of Total resistance exercise vs. aquatic training on self-reported knee instability, pain, and stiffness in women with knee osteoarthritis: a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Knee Instability (KI) is described as a sense of knee buckling, shifting, or giving way during the weight bearing activities. High prevalence (60–80%) has been reported for KI amongst the patients with knee osteoarthritis (KOA). In this line, the present study targeted the effect of two interventions on self-reported KI and affected factors. Methods In this single blind, randomized, and controlled trial, 36 patients with radiographic grading (Kellgren–Lawrence ≥ II) of KOA were selected. Patients were divided into three groups namely, aquatic ( n = 12), Total Resistance exercises (TRX) (n = 12) and control (n = 12) by random. Then both 8-week TRX and aquatic exercises were carried out by experimental groups. The following measure were taken before and after interventions: Pain by visual analog scale (VAS), balance by Berg Balance Scale (BBS), quadriceps strength by dynamometer, knee flexion range of motion (ROM) by inclinometer, knee stiffness with Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis (WOMAC), and self-reported KI with Felson’s questionnaire. Results The results demonstrated that KI, VAS, BBS improved over time both in TRX and aquatic groups significantly ( p < 0.05), but WOMAC (stiffness) , knee flexion ROM, and quadriceps strength were significantly improved over time only for TRX ( p < 0.05). Post hoc test, also, showed that there were significant differences between interventions and control groups (p < 0.05) for the VAS, KI, BBS, but for WOMAC (stiffness), a significant difference was observed only between TRX and control groups ( p = 0.05). Conclusions Although TRX and aquatic interventions had a similar effect on the patients’ balance, pain and KI, TRX had more effect on WOMAC (stiffness) , quadriceps strength, and knee flexion ROM than aquatic exercises. Trial registration This study was registered in the Iranian Clinical Trial Center with the number IRCT20181222042070N1, http://www.irct.ir/trial/36221 , registered 02 February 2019.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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.
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".