Cryotherapy associated with tailored land-based exercises for knee osteoarthritis: a protocol for a double-blind sham-controlled randomised trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: There is an unmet need to develop tailored therapeutic exercise protocols applying different treatment parameters and modalities for individuals with knee osteoarthritis (KOA). Cryotherapy is widely used in rehabilitation as an adjunct treatment due to its effects on pain and the inflammatory process. However, disagreement between KOA guidelines remains with respect to its recommendation status. The aim of this study is to verify the complementary effects of cryotherapy when associated with a tailored therapeutic exercise protocol for patients with KOA. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study is a sham-controlled randomised trial with concealed allocation and intention-to-treat analysis. Assessments will be performed at baseline and immediately following the intervention period. To check for residual effects of the applied interventions, 3-month and 6-month follow-up assessments will be performed. Participants will be community members living with KOA divided into three groups: (1) the experimental group that will receive a tailored therapeutic exercise protocol followed by a cryotherapy session of 20 min; (2) the sham control group that will receive the same regimen as the first group, but with sham packs filled with dry sand and (3) the active treatment control group that will receive only the therapeutic exercise protocol. The primary outcome will be pain intensity according to a Visual Analogue Scale. Secondary outcomes will be the Western Ontario & McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index; the Short-Form Health Survey 36; the 30-s Chair Stand Test; the Stair Climb test; and the 40-m fast-paced walk test. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial was approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee of Federal University of São Carlos, São Paulo, Brazil. Registration approval number: CAAE: 65966617.9.0000.5504. The results will be published in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03360500.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".