MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3045332651 · doi:10.1111/papr.12942

A Randomized Controlled Pilot Study Comparing the Efficacy of Pulsed Radiofrequency Combined With Exercise Versus Exercise Alone in Pain Relief and Functional Improvement for Chronic Knee Osteoarthritis

2020· article· en· W3045332651 on OpenAlex
Qi Han, Yan-Tao Ma, Peiyu Jia, Xiaolei Wang, Bo Wang, Yongjun Zheng

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenuePain Practice · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTendon Structure and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersShanghai Association for Science and Technology
KeywordsMedicineWOMACOsteoarthritisPulsed radiofrequencyConfidence intervalRandomized controlled trialPhysical therapyPain reliefAnesthesiaInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To compare the long-term efficacy between pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) combined with passive stretching (PRF-PS) exercise and PS exercise alone in reducing pain and improving quadriceps muscle strength and knee function. METHODS: Sixty-two participants were randomly assigned with a 1:1 allocation to the PRF-PS exercise group or the PS exercise group. Level of pain, muscle strength, and knee function were assessed from baseline to the first, third, and sixth months after treatment using the VAS, peak torque (PT), and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), respectively. RESULTS: There were no significant differences at baseline between the 2 groups. Compared to exercise alone, participants achieved superior efficacy with PRF-PS in pain relief, improvement of muscle strength, and knee function. Moreover, the improvement of all variables was maintained for a longer period of time in the PRF-PS group. The reduction in participants' VAS pain intensity scores was superior for PRF-PS vs. PS with overall estimation (adjusted mean difference: -1.85 cm; 95% confidence interval [CI] -2.25, -1.45 cm; P = 0.000). The increase in participants' PT scores was superior for PRF-PS vs. PS with overall estimation (adjusted mean difference: 15.53 N. m; 95% CI 7.07, 23.98 N. m; P = 0.000; and 12.62 N. m; 95% CI 0.96, 24.28 N. m; P = 0.000 for PT 60 degrees/s and PT 180 degrees/s, respectively). The reduction in participants' WOMAC scores was superior for PRF-PS vs. PS with overall estimation (adjusted mean difference: -16.43; 95% CI -22.22, -10.64; P = 0.000). DISCUSSION: The improvement in pain relief and knee function might be associated with restoration of muscle strength after PRF-PS exercise by overcoming muscle inhibition.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.075
Threshold uncertainty score0.677

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.242 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it