Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation compared to usual resistance exercise therapy in individuals with knee osteoarthritis: a randomized clinical trial protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/Aims: Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) is characterized by functional impairment in performing of daily life activities. Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation (PNF) is a treatment concept that recommends performing exercises within a context of functionality. To develop a protocol to evaluate the efficacy of (PNF) compared to conventional physiotherapy (CPT group) on pain reduction and improvement in physical functioning and quality of life in individuals with KOA. Methods: A protocol for a randomized controlled trial was proposed to evaluate the effectiveness of the PNF protocol in pain reduction, improvement physical functioning, quality of life and evaluation of adverse effects, according Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials. Participants will be randomly assigned (1:1) to PNF or CPT group and twelve weekly sessions will be carried out for three months. To assess primary outcome measures are knee pain severity (Numeric Rating Scale) and physical functioning (The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities questionnaire). The outcomes will be performed at baseline, 12th session (6 weeks), 24th session (12 weeks) and three-month follow-up. Intention-to-treat will be performed. Results: A PNF protocol was developed for KOA, consisting of seven illustrated exercises. Biomechanical objectives, observations, positions of individuals and therapists, load progression, PNF principles, procedures and techniques have been described. Conclusion: The detailed elaboration of a physical therapy treatment protocol based on the PNF-concept allows a treatment approach based on the principles of learning and motor control, favoring the mitigating and improving physical functioning and quality of life of the individuals with KOA.
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 | 0.015 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.045 | 0.006 |
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".