Effects of combining electrical stimulation of the calf and thigh muscles in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee: protocol for a double-blind, randomised, sham-controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) is a leading cause of disability and is characterised by degenerative changes causing pain and loss of function. Neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) has been shown to influence muscle size and strength in healthy subjects. A novel self-administered NMES device has been developed to help manage the symptoms of KOA. This study aims to investigate the effects of combining NMES of the calf and quadriceps on individuals with KOA. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: 193 individuals with KOA will be recruited to a single-centre, double-blind, randomised, sham-controlled trial at the Respiratory Biomedical Research Centre, Leicester, UK. Participants will be randomised (1:1) to follow an 8-week home-based intervention using a NMES device or sham device. The NMES device consists of footplate electrodes and two quadriceps electrodes. Footplate stimulation will be completed daily for 30 min and quadriceps stimulation for 20 min, five times a week (compliance is recorded in a self-reported participant diary). The primary outcome is the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index pain domain, taken at 8 weeks follow-up. Secondary outcomes will explore quadriceps muscle strength, swelling, health-related quality of life, exercise capacity, anxiety and depression, sleep, physical activity and self-reported compliance. A powered subgroup analysis for compliance to the active device will be complete for the primary outcome. Participant focus groups will be completed following recruitment of half of the participants and after all participants have been recruited. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been obtained from the North-West Preston ethics committee (17/NW/0081). Participants are required to provide informed consent following review of the participant information sheet and discussion regarding study procedures with a member of the research team. The study results will be disseminated to the appropriate stakeholders through presentations, conferences and peer-reviewed journals. Results will be presented to participants following study completion at the Biomedical Research Centre-Respiratory, Glenfield Hospital, Leicester. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN12112819 (date registered 1 May 2019). IRAS registry 219 693. University Hospitals of Leicester registry 91 017. Protocol Version 8.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Protocol About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Randomized trial | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Protocol About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Randomized trial | high |
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 | 0.023 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.061 | 0.013 |
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".