Effect of dynamic cupping therapy vs. vibrating foam roller on pain, range of motion, function, and quality of life in elderly with subacute and chronic osteoarthritis of knee
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) is a frequent degenerative disease of joints. The prevalence is approximately 28% among the Indian elderly. Recently complementary and alternative medicine therapies have been used in managing pain and disability. Dynamic cupping therapy is one of the forms used nowadays. Foam rolling and vibration therapy is also a popular intervention in musculoskeletal conditions such as osteoarthritis, osteoporosis, sarcopenia, and low back pain. Nowadays, these two have been combined for the development of vibrating foam rollers. Objectives: This research aimed to compare the result of dynamic cupping therapy to that of a vibrating foam roller on pain, range of motion, function, and quality of life in elderly with sub-acute and chronic KOA. Materials and Methods: The research was carried out on 45 subjects with subacute to chronic KOA who were given thrice a week sessions for 4 weeks’ intervention. Through the randomized method, subjects were divided into a conventional group, dynamic cupping group and vibrating foam roller group outcome measures Numeric Pain Rating Scale, knee range of motion, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC), and brief Older People's Quality of Life Questionnaire (OPQOL-brief) were used. Results: Wilcoxon rank test revealed a pre-post difference in all three groups with significant P -values which were <0.05 and heterogeneously favored different outcome measures used. Kruskal–Wallis test revealed no difference between the groups. Conclusion: This study concluded that dynamic cupping therapy and vibration foam roller protocols used for the management of KOA are equally effective.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 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".