Comparative Effect of Burst Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (Tens) Versus Interferential Therapy (Ift) Along With Exercise In Reducing Pain and Functional Impairtment in Subjects with Knee Osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Osteoarthritis is a condition characterized by progressive loss of articular cartilage within a joint resulting in a pain. Osteoarthritis is more commonly seen in weight bearing joints i.e. knee joint. Radiologically and pathologically changes of osteoarthritis are seen in age of above 65 years. Because the knee joint is weight bearing and contributes to ambulation, patients usually experience functional limitations in activities of daily living. Materials & Methodology: Patients with knee Osteoarthritis (n=20) were included in this study and patients with traumatic injury to knee, or any recent surgical intervention performed at knee and Neurological illness were excluded from the study. A comparative study was done where two groups were made, Group A (n=10) received burst transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation along with exercises and Group B (n=10) received interferential therapy along with exercise .Treatment was given for 5 times a week for 2 weeks. Pain was assessed using Visual Analogue Scale and functional disability was assessed using Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index. Results: Group B showed significant decrease in pain and functioning as compared to Group A. Mean pre VAS of Burst TENS subjects was 5.90 which was significantly higher than mean post VAS 4.00 (P=0.06) Mean pre VAS of IFT subjects was 6.50 which was significantly higher than mean post VAS 2.90 (p<0.001). Mean pre WOMAC of Burst TENS subjects was 64.90 which was significantly higher than mean post WOMAC 45.60 (p<0.01). Mean pre WOMAC of IFT subjects was 67.50 which was significantly higher than mean post WOMAC 20.70 (p<0.01). Conclusion: The study concluded that Interferential Therapy along with Exercises is more effective than Burst Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation along with Exercise.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".