Comparison of Effectiveness of Forward Walking vs Retro Walking on Pain and Function in Patients with Postmenopausal Osteoarthritis of Knee
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Objectives: Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common form of arthritis and the leading source of physical disability with severely impaired quality of life in people. The overall prevalence of OA in India is found to be higher in females than in males. Rehabilitation exercises in the form of Closed Kinetic Chain Exercises (CKCE) are an effective way in the management of OA knee. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of forward walking versus retrowalking on pain and function in postmenopausal women with OA knee. Methods: 30 postmenopausal females diagnosed with OA knee were randomly allocated into 2 groups. Group A received forward walking while Group B received retrowalking. Both the groups received conventional physiotherapy such as strengthening exercises and Ultrasound along with their assigned interventions. The outcomes were measured in terms of Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) at the start of the intervention and at the end of 6 weeks. Results: The results of the present study showed statistically significant difference within the groups for all outcome measures; but significant difference was found only for WOMAC scores between the groups. Further it was also found that ROM of the knee showed a significant difference both within the groups as well as between the groups. Group B showed better improvement that Group A for pain and function of the knee. Interpretation and Conclusion: The present study concludes that both forward walking and retrowalking are individually effective in reducing pain and improving function of post-menopausal women with OA knee. However, retrowalking results in greater reduction in pain and improved function of postmenopausal women with OA knee. Keywords: Retro walking, Forward Walking, Osteoarthritis, Menopause.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".