MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4293236401 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2022-062577

Feasibility and safety of combining repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation and quadriceps strengthening exercise for chronic pain in knee osteoarthritis: a study protocol for a pilot randomised controlled trial

2022· article· en· W4293236401 on OpenAlexaff
Wei‐Ju Chang, Sam Adie, Justine Naylor, Nahian Chowdhury, Harrison T. Finn, Rodrigo R N Rizzo, Edel O’Hagan, Siobhan M. Schabrun

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOsteoarthritisTranscranial magnetic stimulationPhysical therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationRandomized controlled trialProtocol (science)Chronic painKnee painStimulationAlternative medicineSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Knee osteoarthritis is a leading cause of disability, resulting in pain and reduced quality of life. Exercise is the cornerstone of conservative management but effects are, at best, moderate. Early evidence suggests that repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) applied over the primary motor cortex (M1) may improve the effect of exercise in knee osteoarthritis. This pilot study aims to (1) determine the feasibility, safety and participant-rated response to an intervention adding M1 rTMS to exercise in knee osteoarthritis; (2) elucidate physiological mechanisms in response to the intervention; (3) provide data to conduct a sample size calculation for a fully powered trial. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a pilot randomised, assessor-blind, therapist-blind and participant-blind, sham-controlled trial. Thirty individuals with painful knee osteoarthritis will be recruited and randomly allocated to receive either: (1) active rTMS+exercise or (2) sham rTMS+exercise intervention. Participants will receive 15 min of either active or sham rTMS immediately prior to 30 min of supervised muscle strengthening exercise (2×/week, 6 weeks) and complete unsupervised home exercises. Outcome measures of feasibility, safety, pain, function and physiological mechanisms will be assessed before and/or after the intervention. Feasibility and safety will be analysed using descriptive analysis. Within-group and between-group comparisons of pain and function will be conducted to examine trends of efficacy. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by the University of New South Wales Human Research Ethics Committee (HC210954). All participants will provide written informed consent. The study results will be submitted for peer-reviewed publication. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12621001712897p.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.045
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.237

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0450.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.005
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0070.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0400.009

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.

Opus teacher head0.102
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.290 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Open→Same topicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies→French-language works237,207→