The relative effectiveness of action potential therapy versus local action transcutaneous patches containing Flurbiprofen, for the treatment of osteoarthrltls of the knee
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine the relative effectiveness of action potential therapy versus local action transcutaneous patches containing Flurbiprofen in the treatment of Osteoarthritis of the knee. The study was a prospective, randomized, study involving 60 subjects, 30 in each group, which were selected from the general population. Group one received action potential therapy and a sham patch, while group two received Local Action Transcutaneous Flurbiprofen and sham action potential therapy. Patients received six treatments over a period of two weeks. For the first five visits the patients received action potential therapy, if they were in group one active APT while if they were in group two, sham action potential therapy. Both groups of people received two patches after each visit which they were to use the following day. Those patients in group one received sham patches whilst those in group two received genuine LAT Flurbiprofen patches. Subjective assessment was by means of the short form Me Gill pain Questionnaire, Numerical Pain Rating Scale - 101 Questionnaire and the Western Ontario and McMaster Univerisities Osteoartritis index (Pain, stiffness and physical function subsections). Objective assessment of tenderness was made, by means of an algometer, range of motion was measured through the use of the universal goniometer, and assessment of effusion (swelling) through the use of a standard tape measure. Assessments were taken on the first, third and sixth consultations for all subjective and objective measures. The sixth visit was a data capture visit only. Statistical analysis was completed under the supervision ofMr K Thomas at Technikon Natal, at a 95% confidence interval. The parametric two-sample paired t-test and the non-parametric Wilcoxon signed rank tests were used to analyze data within each group, while the parametric two-sample unpaired t-test and non-parametric Mann-Whitney unpaired U test were used to analyse the data between each group. In terms of objective findings both groups showed a significant overall increase in pressure pain threshold (algometeric readings), a decrease in effusion (ifit was present) and improvement in the range of knee flexion. In terms of patients' subjective response to treatment, both groups showed a significant overall decrease in pain perception (NRS-lOl and McGill Pain Questionnaire) and furthermore an improvement in pain, stiffuess and physical function (as measured by the WOMAC OA index) was also seen in both groups. No significant differences were found between the groups for the subjective measures, a statistically significant difference was however found between the algometric measures of the first, third and sixth visits indicating a greater improvement within treatment group 2 (LAT flurbiprofen patches) in terms of pressure pain threshold
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".