Effects of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) in people with knee osteoarthritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of Transcutaneous Electric Nerve Stimulation (TENS) on pain, function, walking ability and stiffness in people with Knee osteoarthritis (KOA). DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), clinicaltrials.gov and Web of Science (last search November 2021) for randomized controlled trials. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool was used for the included studies, and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) was used to interpret the certainty of results. Standardized Mean Differences (SMDs) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated for meta-analysis. RESULTS: Twenty-nine studies were found (1398 people, age range 54-85, 74% are female) and fourteen were included in this review. Intervention duration was divided as short term (immediately after intervention), medium term (
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 | 0.011 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.024 | 0.033 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| 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".