Comparison between the effects of Maitland’s mobilization versus its combination with vastus medialis oblique neuromuscular stimulation on two scales (NPRS & WOMAC) in knee osteoarthritis patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background & objectives: Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common form of arthritis that increases with age affecting the population from the middle age to the elderly. The present study was undertaken to find whether neuromuscular stimulation of vastus medialis oblique (VMO) in combination with Maitland's mobilization and exercises was more effective as compared to Maitland's mobilization with exercises alone in patients with knee OA. Methods: Sixty patients with knee OA were purposively selected and randomly distributed to two groups that received an intervention for eight weeks. Group A patients received Maitland's mobilization in combination with exercises and group B patients received the same intervention as group A in combination with neuromuscular stimulation of VMO muscle. After eight weeks, outcome measures, i.e. Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) and Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) index, were reassessed. Results: Both groups showed significant (P<0.05) within-group improvement in the knee pain levels and stiffness as reflected by NPRS and WOMAC index. Interpretation & conclusions: Patients of both the groups (A and B) were found to be improving significantly in pain and disability, group A patients receiving Maitland's mobilization in combination with exercises were found to get more relief in pain and disability.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".