MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3167472677 · doi:10.1155/2021/5574966

The Efficacy of Backward Walking on Static Stability, Proprioception, Pain, and Physical Function of Patients with Knee Osteoarthritis: A Randomized Controlled Trial

2021· article· en· W3167472677 on OpenAlex
Zehua Chen, Xiangling Ye, Yi Wang, Zhen Shen, Jiatao Wu, Weijian Chen, Tao Jiang, Wu Huai, Xuemeng Xu

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersTraditional Chinese Medicine Bureau of Guangdong Province
KeywordsWOMACOsteoarthritisProprioceptionMedicinePhysical therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationRandomized controlled trialSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective. Impaired static stability and proprioception have been observed in individuals with knee osteoarthritis (KOA), which serves as a major factor increasing risk of fall. This study aimed to investigate the effects of backward walking (BW) on static stability, proprioception, pain, and physical function in KOA patients. Methods. Thirty-two subjects with knee osteoarthritis were randomly assigned to either an BW group (BG, n = 16) or a control group (CG, n = 16). The participants in the BG received combination treatment of a 4-week BW training and conventional treatments, while those in the CG was treated with conventional treatments alone. All the participants were tested for the assessment of static stability [center of pressure (COP) sway, including sway length (SL, mm) and sway area (SA, mm2)] and proprioception [average trajectory error (ATE, %) and completion time (CT, second)]. Additionally, pain and knee function scores were measured by the numerical rating scale (NRS) and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) Index, respectively. The assessments were conducted before and after intervention. Results. The COP sway (SA and SL), ATE, NRS, and WOMAC showed a significant decline at week 4 in the two groups in contrast to their baseline ( <a:math xmlns:a="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M1"> <a:mi>P</a:mi> <a:mo>&lt;</a:mo> <a:mn>0.05</a:mn> </a:math> ). Moreover, after 4-week intervention, the SA [(610.50 ± 464.26) mm2 vs. (538.69 ± 420.52) mm2], NRS [(1.56 ± 0.63) vs. (2.25 ± 0.86)], and WOMAC [(11.69 ± 2.50) vs. (16.19 ± 3.94)] showed a significantly greater decrease in the BG compared to the CG ( <c:math xmlns:c="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M2"> <c:mi>P</c:mi> <c:mo>&lt;</c:mo> <c:mn>0.05</c:mn> </c:math> , respectively). However, the proprioception (ATE and CT) was closely similar between both groups at week 4 ( <e:math xmlns:e="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M3"> <e:mi>P</e:mi> <e:mo>&gt;</e:mo> <e:mn>0.05</e:mn> </e:math> ). Conclusion. BW is an effective adjunct to conventional treatment in reducing pain, improving physical function and static stability for KOA patients. It should be taken into consideration when developing rehabilitation programs for people with KOA.

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.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.394

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.305 · 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