Mechanical traction from different knee joint angles in patients with knee osteoarthritis: A randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To compare the effect of mechanical traction from different knee angles on pain, physical function, and range of motion in patients with knee osteoarthritis. Design A single-blinded, randomized controlled trial. Setting Outpatient public and governmental Hospital clinics. Participants One hundred and twenty patients with knee osteoarthritis were randomly assigned into 4 equal groups with 30 patients in each group. Interventions Group (A) received conventional physiotherapy(CPT) treatment; group (B) received CPT with knee traction from full extension, group (C) received CPT with knee traction from 90° flexion, while group (D) received CPT with knee traction from 20° flexion. Interventions were applied 3 sessions a week for 4 weeks. Outcome measurements Visual analog scale (VAS), knee passive range of motion and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) were measured at baseline, immediately after 4 weeks of intervention, and after 4 weeks of no intervention as a follow-up. Results After eight weeks, the mean (SD) for VAS scores were 30.97 ± 8.68, 24.0 ± 8.8, 15.43 ± 6.31, and 16.17 ± 6.11 mm; for total WOMAC scores were 26.77 ± 9.19, 20.3 ± 8.52, 13.27 ± 6.25, and 13.43 ± 7.14 for groups A, B, C and D, respectively. The three traction groups showed statistically significant changes in pain scores, physical function, and total WOMAC, but not for knee passive range of motion, in favor of traction groups C and D than the conventional group ( P < 0.05). Conclusions Traction from 90°and 20° of knee flexion was found superior to full extension knee in improving pain and physical function, but not for knee passive range of motion, in patients with knee osteoarthritis.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".