Short-term Effects of Mulligan's Mobilization With Movement on Pain, Function, and Emotional Aspects in Individuals With Knee Osteoarthritis: A Prospective Case Series
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the short-term effects of Mulligan's mobilization with movement (MWM) on pain, physical function, emotional aspects, and proprioceptive acuity after a 2-week treatment period and throughout a 3-week follow-up period. METHODS: A single group of 30 participants (60.96 ± 5.16 years) with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis (KOA) was evaluated. The protocol involved 5 evaluations moments, before (baseline) and after 2 weeks of intervention (24 hours after the last session), and at 3-week follow-up. The intervention included 3 Mulligan's MWM techniques. The variables evaluated were pain (pressure pain threshold and Visual Numeric Scale), physical function (range of motion, proprioceptive acuity, and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index) and emotional aspects (Beck Depression Inventory). Analysis of variance for repeated measures was used considering a significance level of 5%. RESULTS: At the second evaluation (after intervention), the pressure pain threshold presented higher values for rectus femoris, tibialis anterior, and patellar tendon sites and reduced values for the Visual Numeric Scale, Beck Depression Inventory, and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index compared with baseline. Also, during the follow-up period, all variables returned close to baseline levels. Proprioceptive acuity and range of motion did not present significant changes. CONCLUSION: Scores for pain relief, physical function, and emotional aspects improved after a course of MWM in this single group of individuals with KOA. Mobilization with movement had limited outcome during follow-up. It suggests that future clinical trials on the use of MWM for KOA should be considered.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".