Efficacy of prolonged application of low-level laser therapy combined with exercise in knee osteoarthritis: A randomized controlled double-blind study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effect of prolonged low-level laser therapy application combined with exercise on pain and disability in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee. DESIGN: A randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Special rehabilitation services. SUBJECTS: Forty-three participants with knee osteoarthritis. INTERVENTION: Following initial assessment, participants were randomly allocated to the Laser group (n = 22, 44 knees) and received low-level laser therapy while the Placebo group (n = 21, 42 knees) received placebo therapy three times a week for 3 weeks. Both groups then received low-level laser therapy combined with exercise three times a week for the following 8 weeks. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was change in knee pain and disability (Lequesne). Secondary outcomes included change in mobility (Timed Up and Go test), range of motion (goniometer), muscular strength (dynamometer), activity (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis questionnaire), and medication intake and relief. RESULTS: Mean (SD) age of participants was 63.02 (9.9) years. Pain scores at baseline, 3 weeks, 11 weeks, and 6 months follow-up were 9.1 (1.3), 2.6 (2.3), 0.2 (0.9), and 0.2 (0.8) for the Laser group and 9.5 (8.0), 7.7 (5.3), 5.6 (2.4), and 7.4 (5.0) for the Placebo group, respectively. Disability scores at baseline, 3 weeks, 11 weeks, and 6 months follow-up were 14.9 (4.7), 7.6 (4.8), 3.9 (4.2), and 3.5 (4.1) for the Laser group and 17.8 (14.7), 15.2 (11.5), 11.6 (6.4), and 15.8 (11.9) for the Placebo Group, respectively. CONCLUSION: In participants with osteoarthritis of the knee, the isolated application of low-level laser therapy in the initial 3 weeks and combined with exercises in the final 8 weeks reduced pain, disability, and intake of medication over a 6-month period.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".