Effect of compression by elastic bandages on pain and function in individuals with knee osteoarthritis: protocol of a randomised controlled clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Although compression is used to control pain in knee osteoarthritis (KOA), its clinical application is poorly supported, and there is a lack of scientific evidence to support its clinical use. As a low-cost and accessible protocol, compression using elastic bands could be a non-pharmacological intervention to reduce pain and improve physical function in individuals with KOA. This study aims to evaluate the effects of compression on pain and function in individuals with KOA. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A randomised controlled clinical trial will be conducted. Individuals with KOA (n=90; both sexes; between 40 and 75 years old) will be allocated to three groups (n=30/group): compression (compression by the elastic bandage on the affected knee, once a day for 20 min, on four consecutive days); sham (same protocol, but the elastic band is placed around the affected knee without compression) and control (no intervention). The individuals in the three groups will be evaluated 1 day before the first intervention, 1 day after the last intervention, and at the 12th and 24th weeks after the end of the intervention. Pain intensity by the Visual Analogue Scale and pain scale from Western Ontario & McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) will be the primary outcomes. The secondary variables will be physical function assessed by the WOMAC questionnaire and physical tests (step test; 30 s sit and stand test; 40 m accelerated walk test). The Global Rating of Change Scale (GRC) will also be applied to quantify the volunteers' perceived change. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The project was approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee of the Federal University of São Carlos, São Paulo, Brazil (3955692). The results will be published in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04724902.
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 | 0.038 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.047 | 0.009 |
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.
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".