Effectiveness of Tuina manipulation in patients with knee osteoarthritis: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) is a common disabling musculoskeletal disorder. Previous studies showed that Tuina manipulation and health care education were effective treatments for patients with KOA. However, there is no evidence to support the use of one intervention rather than another. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of Tuina manipulation and health care education in the management of pain and dysfunction in patients with KOA. Methods/Design: This study is a single center, two-arm, open-label RCT. A total of 150 eligible KOA patients will be randomly assigned to the Tuina manipulation group or the health education group in a 1:1 ratio. Patients in the Tuina manipulation group receives a 30-minute 2-step treatment plan, including pain point assessment and manual therapy, which are performed 12 times in 4 weeks. The health education group conducts 45 minutes of lectures and discussions each time, three times a week for four weeks. The primary outcome is the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS). Secondary outcomes include the McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ) and 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36). The results of this study will help clarify the value of Tuina manipulation and health education as treatments for KOA and will highlight any differences in treatment outcomes. Discussion: The design and methodology of the trial is rigorous and allows the collection of valuable data to assess the efficacy of a specific Tuina regimen in the treatment of KOA. Therefore, the trial will provide a solid foundation for the future clinical research of KOA as well as the future of Tuina therapy. Trial registration: This trial was registered with Chinese Clinical Trial Registry on 24 February 2020(ChiCTR2000030154), http://www.chictr.org.cn/index.aspx
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 | 0.040 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| 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".