Effects of low-intensity pulsed ultrasound on knee osteoarthritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To systemically review the effects of low-intensity pulsed ultrasound (LIPUS) on pain relief and functional recovery in patients with knee osteoarthritis (KOA). Data sources PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) were used from inception to 18 March 2022. Review Methods Meta-analysis was performed to evaluate pain and function recovery between control and LIPUS groups. Standardized mean difference (SMD) or mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated, and data were combined using the fixed or random-effect model. Results Thirteen studies involving 807 patients with KOA were included. Patients’ outcomes treated by LIPUS were improved significantly, including Visual analog scale (VAS) score (MD = −0.95, 95% CI: −1.43 to −0.48， P < 0.001), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis index (WOMAC) score (MD = −4.35, 95% CI: −8.30 to −0.40, P = 0.0309), Lysholm score (SMD = 1.59, 95% CI: 1.29 to 1.90, P < 0.001), Lequesne index (MD = −1.33, 95% CI: −1.69 to −0.96, P < 0.001), Range of motion (ROM) (MD = 2.43, 95% CI: 0.39 to 4.46, P = 0.0197) and 50 meter walking time (SMD = 1.48, 95% CI: 0.46 to 2.49, P = 0.0044). Subgroup analyses showed monotherapy of LIPUS produced a better effect on reducing VAS score ( P = 0.0213), and the shorter therapeutic period (≤4 weeks) produced a more significant effect on raising the WOMAC score ( P = 0.0083). Conclusion LIPUS was beneficial for pain relief and functional knee recovery and maybe as an alternative therapy in KOA rehabilitation.
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 | 0.021 | 0.164 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.059 | 0.020 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".