Effectiveness of Structured Rehabilitation Program on Pain and Function in Patients with Total Knee Replacement: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To determine the effectiveness of the structured rehabilitation program on knee pain and function in patients with a total knee replacement. Methodology: A randomized controlled trial conducted at Horizon Hospital Lahore. Twenty six patients were randomly allocated to experimental and control group. Experimental group was treated with structured rehabilitation program and conventional exercises while control group was treated with conventional exercises alone. Outcome measuring tools were numeric pain rating scale, Western Ontario McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and goniometer. All the patients received 16 sessions of treatment. Data was collected at baseline and at the end of 4th week. Results: Outcome measures numeric pain rating scale, Western Ontario McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and goniometer showed significant results (p<0.05) after treatment in both groups but mean values showed more improvement in experimental group treated with structured rehabilitation program. Conclusion: This study concluded that structured rehabilitation program had better effects on pain, function and range of motion in patients with knee arthroplasty. Keywords: Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee, Knee osteoarthritis, Range of motion, exercise therapy
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".