A Meta‐Analysis of Analgesic Effect of Ultrasound Therapy for Patients With Knee Osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To compare the efficacy of therapeutic ultrasound in pain relief and functional recovery in knee osteoarthritis. A comprehensive search of five databases including EMBASE, PubMed, CBM, the Cochrane Library, and Google scholar was conducted to identify relevant studies published between January 1, 2005 and December 31, 2020. Eligible randomized trials were screened for inclusion in this study. Data about the mean change of visual analogue scale (VAS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and range of motion (ROM) were collected. Fourteen randomized trials covering 1080 patients with treatment durations of 2 to 24 weeks were included. Both pulsed (SMD [CI] = 1.11 [0.86, 1.36], P for heterogeneity < .00001, I2 = 18%) and continuous ultrasound (SMD [CI] = 1.18 [0.78, 1.57], P for heterogeneity < .00001, I2 = 72%) therapy had obvious pain relief effects, and high‐intensity (>1.5 W/cm2) ultrasound seemed more effective (SMD [CI] = 1.34 [0.94, 1.73], P for heterogeneity < .00001, I2 = 35%). In addition, therapeutic ultrasound was also effective in increasing joint function by WOMAC (SMD [CI] = 8.18 [5.88, 10.48], P for heterogeneity < .00001, I2 = 59%). There was a certain degree of heterogeneity due to the differences between the subjects in the study and the ultrasound parameter settings. Our analysis confirmed that both pulsed and continuous ultrasound are effective and safe for pain relief and functional recovery of knee osteoarthritis, especially in high intensity (> 1.5 W/cm2). However, more high‐quality randomized controlled trials will be necessary.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.039 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".