Effectiveness Of Continuous Versus Pulsed Short-Wave Diathermy In The Management Of Knee Osteoarthritis: A Randomised Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Short-wave diathermy (SWD) is an electrotherapeutic modality used in the conservative treatment of knee osteoarthritis (KOA). Electromagnetic radiation delivered in continuous (cSWD) or pulse (pSWD) mode provides a deep heating effect on tissues. There is no consensus on outcomes of treatment with cSWD versus pSWD in KOA. The aim of this study was to compare the effects of cSWD versus pSWD on pain, functionality and walking distance in KOA. Methods: 34 female patients aged 49-65 with KOA were randomized into two groups. A total of 27 patients completed the study. One group (n=11) was treated with cSWD, the other (n=16) with pSWD for three weeks. Patients were assessed before, after and at one month post therapy. Outcome measures included visual analogue scale (VAS) for knee pain, Western Ontario and Mcmaster University Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and a six-minute walking test (6MWT). Results: Based on the minimal clinically important improvement (MCII), there was a reduction in VAS and WOMAC scores in both cSWD and pSWD groups post treatment (-37.3mm, 31.2mm respectively for VAS and 26%, 23% respectively for WOMAC) and at one month post treatment. There was no difference in pre and post treatment VAS for pain, WOMAC or 6MWT scores between the two groups. There was a small post treatment effect size on between- group 6MWT scores (Cohen’s d: 0.238). Conclusion: Both treatment options appear to be efficacious in reducing pain and improving functionality in KOA. There was no between-group difference. A larger study must be conducted to consolidate these findings.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".