Effect of Phonophoresis On Patients With Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review And Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Phonophoresis is an alternative treatment for knee osteoarthritis. However, evidence supporting the advantages of phonophoresis remains inconsistent. This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to illustrate the effect of phonophoresis. The PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases were searched for relevant studies from the date of their inception to 28 June, 2021. The eligibility criteria were: (1) randomized controlled trials (RCTs); (2) patients diagnosed as having knee osteoarthritis; (3) treatment with either phonophoresis or therapeutic ultrasound with placebo gels; and (4) reporting clinical and functional outcomes. Continuous variables are expressed as standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 software. The analysis included nine RCTs covering a total of 423 patients. The intervention group significantly outperformed the control group in visual analog scale score [SMD = −0.65, 95% CI (−1.04, −0.25), P = 0.001], Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) score [SMD = −0.71, 95% CI (−1.26, −0.16), P = 0.01], and walk test score [SMD = −0.67, 95% CI (−1.21, −0.13), P = 0.02]. As a result, phonophoresis might alleviate pain and improve function in the short term. Further high-quality, large-scale RCTs are required to confirm the benefits.
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 | 0.052 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.073 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".