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
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".