Comparison of the open kinetic chain and closed kinetic chain strengthening exercises on pain perception and lower limb biomechanics of patients with mild knee osteoarthritis: a randomized controlled trial protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Clinical recommendations suggest exercises as the main treatment modality for patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA). This study aimed to compare the effects of two different exercise interventions, i.e., open kinetic chain (OKC) and closed kinetic chain (CKC) exercises, on the pain and lower limb biomechanics of patients with mild knee OA. METHOD: in Kelantan, Malaysia, will be recruited in this study. Participants will be randomly allocated into three different groups, either the OKC, CKC, or control groups. All three groups will attend an individual session with a physiotherapist. The participants in the OKC and CKC groups will perform the exercises three times weekly for 8 weeks at their home. The control group will receive education about clinical manifestations, risk factors, diagnosis, treatment, and nursing care for knee via printed materials. The primary outcomes include self-reported pain scores (visual analog scale), disability scores (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index), and quality of life scores (Osteoarthritis Knee and Hip Quality of Life). Secondary outcomes include lower limb biomechanics during gait and sit-to-stand as well as isokinetic knee strength. The outcomes will be measured before and after the intervention. DISCUSSION: The present study will compare the effects of two different home-based exercise intervention programs among patients with mild knee OA. The study findings will provide vital information that can be used to design an effective exercise program that aims at delaying the OA progression. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The protocol was registered on 22 December 2020 at ClinicalTrials.gov (registration number: NCT04678609 ).
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".