Effect of laying on of hands as a complementary therapy for pain and functioning in older women with knee osteoarthritis: A randomized controlled clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To assess the effects of laying on of hands (LooH) as a complementary therapy to kinesiotherapy, on pain, joint stiffness, and functional capacity of older women with knee osteoarthritis (KOA) compared to a control group. METHODS: In this randomized controlled clinical trial, participants were assigned into 3 groups: LooH with a spiritual component ("Spiritist passe" Group - SPG), LooH without a spiritual component (LooH Group - LHG), and a control group receiving no complementary intervention (Control Group - CG). Patients were assessed at baseline, 8 weeks, and 16 weeks. Primary outcomes were joint stiffness and functional capacity (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index [WOMAC]), and pain (WOMAC and visual analog scale). Secondary outcomes were anxiety, depression, mobility, and quality of life. Differences between groups were evaluated using an intention-to-treat approach. RESULTS: A total of 120 women (mean age = 69.2 ± 5.2 years) with KOA were randomized (40 participants per group). At 8 weeks, SPG differed significantly from the LHG for WOMAC Functional Status (between-group difference in the change = 0.97; 95% CI: 0.35 to 1.59, P = .001); Anxiety levels (between-group difference in the change = 1.38; 95% CI: 0.11 to 2.65, P = .027); and also from the CG for all outcomes with exception of WOMAC Stiffness. After 16 weeks, SPG differed significantly from the LHG only for WOMAC Functional Status (between-group difference in the change = 0.92; 95% CI: 0.32 to 1.52, P = .001]) and also from the CG for all outcomes with exception of WOMAC Stiffness and timed up-and-go. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that LooH with a "spiritual component" may promote better long-term functional outcomes than both LooH without a "spiritual component" and a control group without LooH.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".