A randomized comparative study between high‐intensity laser vs low‐intensity pulsed ultrasound both combined with exercises for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of high-intensity laser therapy (HILT) plus exercise therapy (ET) vs low-intensity pulsed ultrasound (LIPUS) plus ET in knee osteoarthritis (KOA). METHODS: A single blinded randomized controlled trial in an outpatient setting. There were 60 participants with grades II and III KOA based on the radiological findings in Kellgren and Lawrence grading scale. Participants were allocated randomly into three groups, study group I (HILT+ET), study group II (LIPUS+ET), and control (ET) group. Participants in the three groups received active range of motion (ROM) exercises, muscle strengthening, and flexibility exercises. Treatment was administered 5 times/wk for two successive weeks. Primary outcomes involved visual analog scale (VAS), secondary outcomes involved knee ROM, proprioceptive accuracy and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index scale. All outcomes were measured pre- and post-treatment. RESULTS: The mean age of participants was 55.4 ± 6.34, 55.2 ± 4.77 and 57 ± 6.39 years in HILT+ET, LIPUS+ET and control group respectively. There were statistically significant time-by-group effects (mixed-design multivariate analysis of variance) on all measured outcomes for all groups (P < .0001). However, HILT+ET yielded better improvement than the other groups (P < .0001). Between-group comparison revealed a significant difference in all measured outcomes between study group 1 vs study group 2, and between each study group vs the control group (P = .0001). CONCLUSION: The effect of HILT combined with exercises achieved better results in pain, knee ROM, proprioceptive accuracy and functional disability than LIPUS combined with exercises and both are better than exercises only.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".