MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4365448084 · doi:10.1186/s12891-023-06334-9

Effect of low-magnitude, variable-frequency vibration therapy on pain threshold levels and mobility in adults with moderate knee osteoarthritis—randomized controlled trial

2023· article· en· W4365448084 on OpenAlexaff
Alicja Pasterczyk-Szczurek, Joanna Golec, Edward Golec

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Musculoskeletal Disorders · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEffects of Vibration on Health
Canadian institutionsViTRAK Systems (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOsteoarthritisSports medicineRandomized controlled trialRheumatologyPhysical therapyOrthopedic surgeryRehabilitationInternal medicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationSurgeryAlternative medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis (OA) is one of the most commonly recorded diseases in clinical practice. Vibration therapy has been suggested for the treatment of knee OA. The purpose of the study was to determine the impact of vibrations of variable frequency and low amplitude on pain perception and mobility in patients suffering from knee OA. METHODS: Thirty-two participants were allocated into two groups - Group 1 (oscillatory cycloidal vibrotherapy-OCV) and Group 2-control (sham therapy). The participants were diagnosed with moderate degenerative changes in the knee (grade II based on the Kellgren-Lawrence (KL) Grading Scale). Subjects received 15 sessions of vibration therapy and sham therapy respectively. Pain, range of motion, and functional disability were assessed through Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Laitinen questionnaire, goniometer (ROM - range of motion), timed up and go test (TUG) and Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS). Measurements were taken at baseline, after the last session and four weeks after the last session (follow up). T-test and U-Mann Whitney test compare baseline characteristics. The Wilcoxon and ANOVA tests compared mean VAS, Laitinen, ROM, TUG and KOOS. The significant P-value was less than 0.05. RESULTS: After 3 weeks (15 sessions) of vibration therapy, reduced the sensation of pain and improved mobility was recorded. There was a more significant improvement in the vibration therapy group than the control group in pain alleviation on VAS scale (p < 0.001), on Laitinen scale (p < 0.001), knee ROMs flexions (p < 0.001) and TUG (p < 0.001) at the last session. KOOS score with pain indicator, symptoms, activities of daily living, function in sport and recreation and knee related quality of life improved more in the vibration therapy group than the control group. Effects maintained up to 4 weeks in vibration group. No adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Our data demonstrated that the use of vibrations of variable frequency and low amplitude in patients with the knee OA is a safe and effective therapy. It is recommended to increase the number of treatments performed, primarily in patients with degeneration II° according to the KL classification. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Prospectively registered on ANZCTR ( ACTRN12619000832178 ). Registered on 11 June 2019.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.275 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Musculoskeletal DisordersSame topicEffects of Vibration on HealthFrench-language works237,207