Efficacy and Safety of Focused Low-Intensity Pulsed Ultrasound Therapy Versus Pulsed Shortwave Diathermy for the Management of Knee Osteoarthritis: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Focused low-intensity pulsed ultrasound(FLIPUS)and pulsed shortwave diathermy (PSWD) are presented as possible solution to attenuate the loss of function in the elderly with knee osteoarthritis(OA). The question remains unanswered which one is better modalities. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of FLIPUS with PSWD in subjects with painful knee OA. In a prospective randomized trial,114 knee OA patients were randomly allocated to receive FLIPUS or PSWD therapy. The primary outcome was the change from baseline in the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) total and subscale scores. Secondary outcomes included numerical rating scale (NRS), Time Up and Go (TUG) test, active joint range of motion (ROM), and Global Rating of Change (GRC) scale. Data were collected at baseline, 12 days, 12 weeks and 24 weeks. Patients receiving FLIPUS therapy experienced significantly greater improvements in WOMAC total scores than patients receiving PSWD therapy at 12 days post-therapy (mean difference, -10.50; 95% CI, -13.54 to -7.45; P = 0.000). The results of the NRS scores, TUG test, ROM and GRC scale showed that participants treated with FLIPUS reported less pain and better physical function and health status than those treated with PSWD (P =0.011, P =0.005, P =0.025, P =0.011,respectively). Furthermore, patients in the FLIPUS group showed significant improvements in the WOMAC total scores and NRS scores at 12 and 24 weeks of follow-up (P =0.000 for all). FLIPUS immediately improved knee pain, dysfunction and health status compared with PSWD. In addition, the benefit of FLIPUS persists throughout follow-up. Trial registration: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR2000032735. Registered 08/05/2020, http://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.aspx? proj= 53413.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
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".