MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3202441010 · doi:10.34172/jlms.2021.44

A Comparison Between Low-Level Laser Therapy and Intra-articular Ozone Injection in Knee Osteoarthritis Treatment: A Randomized Clinical Trial

2021· article· en· W3202441010 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Solmaz Fakhari, Alireza Pishghahi, Hojjat Pourfathi, Haleh Farzin, Eissa Bilehjani

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of lasers in medical sciences · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical and Biological Ozone Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOsteoarthritisWOMACOzone therapyRange of motionLow level laser therapyPhysical therapyRandomized controlled trialClinical trialKnee JointLaser therapySurgeryInternal medicineLaser

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) is a common degenerative joint disease, causing deformity, pain and a limited joint range of motion. Modification of the lifestyle and an exercise training program are the cornerstone of treatment. Alternative therapies such as laser or ozone are commonly used, but there is not any comparative study of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) versus ozone therapy. The aim of the study was to compare the efficacy and safety of the LLLT versus ozone in patients with KOA. Methods: In this single-blinded randomized clinical trial, 60 patients with KOA were assigned to LLLT or ozone groups (n=30). The First basic pain severity, the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) score and physical function were determined. Then in the LLLT group, the patients were provided with 12 sessions of LLLT. In the ozone group, 6 sessions of intra-articular injection of ozone were organized (in each session a mixture of 10 mL of bupivacaine 0.25% with 15 mL of ozone 30 μg/mL). In the middle and at the end of the intervention period, we reassessed the joint pain and physical function and the degree of improvement compared between the two groups. Results: In the middle and at the end of the treatment period in both groups, the joint pain decreased significantly. The same as pain, the self-administrated WOMAC score and the range of joint motion improved significantly in both groups. All of these variables exposed more improvement in the ozone group patients. Conclusion: The study showed that both LLLT and ozone are acceptable non-invasive methods in the non-surgical treatment of KOA. Compared to LLLT, the ozone was more effective. These methods must be considered in any patient who is not suitable for surgical interventions or does not experience enough improvement in symptoms following long periods of common exercise training programs.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.204
GPT teacher head0.456
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
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

Citations10
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of lasers in medical sciencesSame topicMedical and Biological Ozone ResearchFrench-language works237,207