The effect of Mulligan's mobilization with movement following total knee arthroplasty: Protocol of a single‐blind randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mulligan's mobilization with movement (MWM) aims to enhance the kinematics of the joint. Kinematic impairment of the knee joint is significant following total knee arthroplasty (TKA), which could be managed with Mulligan's MWM. This article describes the study protocol for a single-blind randomized controlled trial investigating the effectiveness of Mulligan's MWM following TKA. METHODS: A single-blind randomized controlled trial design will be employed to compare two groups: an intervention and control group. Each group will attend a standard post-operative rehabilitation program. The intervention group will additionally receive articular mobilization using a Mulligan's MWM approach. A blinded examiner will assess participants at four points: pre-operation, 3 weeks post-operation (when the intervention starts), 6 weeks post-operation (when the intervention ends), and at 6 months as a long-term follow-up. The two groups will be compared on the basis of knee range of motion (standard goniometry), knee joint pain (Visual Analogue Scales), walking speed using (15-metre walk test), functional mobility (timed up and go test) and participation (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index questionnaire). A blinded examiner will measure knee joint alignment using a computed tomography scanogram pre-operatively and at 3 months post operation. Mixed model ANOVA will be used to identify any group differences. Ethical approval has been secured from the ethical committee of Kuwait Ministry of Health, and the trial is registered in the ISRCTN registry (ref:13028992). DISCUSSION: The study findings could inform the optimization of post-operative rehabilitation of patients following TKA.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".