MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Assessment of role of Dexamethasone phonophoresis in patients with knee osteoarthritis: A clinical study

2020· article· en· W3088291987 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Shubh Mehrotra, Vinay Tripathi

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Orthopaedics Sciences · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePhonophoresisWOMACOsteoarthritisTranscutaneous electrical nerve stimulationVisual analogue scalePhysical therapyGroup BKnee painSurgeryUltrasound

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The present study was conducted to assess role of Dexamethasone phonophoresis in patients with knee Osteoarthritis (OA). Materials and methods: This study was conducted on 90 patients of knee osteoarthritis of both genders. Group I received DxPh and conventional physical therapy treatment in the form of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) current and exercise (study group). Group 2 received ultrasound therapy and the same conventional physical therapy treatment (control group). Knee pain was assessed by the visual analog scale (VAS) and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities OA Index (WOMAC) pain subscale. Functional mobility was also assessed. Results: There were 25 males and 20 females in group I and 23 males and 22 females in group 2. Pre- treatment VAS in group I was 80.5 and in group 2 was 72.3, post treatment VAS in group I was 38.4 and in group 2 was 58.5. Pre- treatment TUD in group I was 12.5 and in group 2 was 10.4, post treatment TUG was 7.8 in group I and 9.3 in group 2, pre-treatment WOMAC pain score in group I was 14.6 and in group 2 was 12.2, post treatment score was 6.7 in group I and 8.3 in group 2, pre- treatment WOMAC stiffness in group I was 6.8 and in group 2 was 5.2, post treatment was 2.9 in group I and 4.9 in group 2, pre- treatment WOMAC function score was 43.5 in group I and 44.3 in group 2, post treatment was 19.2 in group I and 32.3 in group 2, WOMAC pre- treatment score in group I was 66.4 and in group 2 was 61.2, post treatment total score in group I was 28.3 and in group 2 was 46.7. The difference was significant (P< 0.05). Conclusion: Authors found that DxPh resulted in a greater improvement in pain and function in patients with knee OA than therapeutic ultrasound combined with exercise and TENS.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.288

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.310 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Orthopaedics SciencesSame topicOsteoarthritis Treatment and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207