Long term efficacy of mobilisation with movement on pain and functional status in patients with knee osteoarthritis: a randomised clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the long term effect of mobilisation with movement on disability, pain and function in subjects with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis. DESIGN: A randomised controlled trial. SETTING: A general hospital. SUBJECTS: Forty adults with knee osteoarthritis (grade 1-3 Kellgren-Lawrence scale). INTERVENTIONS: The experimental group received mobilisation with movement and usual care (exercise and moist heat) while the control group received usual care alone in six sessions over two weeks. MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome was the Western Ontario McMaster University Osteoarthritis index, higher scores indicating greater disability. Pain intensity over 24 hours and during sit to stand were measured on a 10 centimetre visual analogue scale. Functional outcomes were the timed up and go test, the 12 step stair test, and knee range of motion. Patient satisfaction was measured on an 11 point numerical rating scale. Variables were evaluated blind pre- and post intervention, and at three and six months follow-up. RESULTS: Thirty five participants completed the study. At each follow-up including six-months, significant differences were found between groups favouring those receiving mobilisation with movement for all variables except knee mobility. The primary outcome disability showed a mean difference of 7.4 points (95% confidence interval, 4.5 to 10.3) at six-months and a mean difference of 13.6 points (95% confidence interval, 9.3 to 17.9) at three-months follow-up. CONCLUSION: In patients with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis, the addition of mobilisation with movement provided clinically significant improvements in disability, pain, functional activities and patient satisfaction six months later.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".