Comparative Study Between Kinesiotaping Versus Muscle Energy Technique in Patients with Knee Osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Osteoarthritis (OA) is a chronic progressive degenerative disorder of multifactorial etiology, causing greater disability and clinical symptoms among adults. Our study aim is to compare the effectiveness of kinesio taping with conventional therapy versus muscle energy technique with conventional therapy in subjects with knee osteoarthritis. Moreover, the assessed objectives are knee pain, range of motion, disability, quadriceps strength, and hamstring flexibility. It is a comparative study, where 30 subjects with knee osteoarthritis meeting the inclusion criteria were recruited and randomly divided into Group A (Kinesiotaping with conventional therapy) and Group B (Muscle energy technique with conventional therapy), each group containing 15 subjects. Both groups received the same conventional therapy, five sessions/week for three weeks. GROUP-A received Kinesiotaping 3 sessions/per week for three weeks, and GROUP-B received Muscle energy technique five sessions/per week for three weeks. Outcome parameters were a Visual Analogue Scale(VAS) for pain, a Goniometer for a range of motion, WOMAC (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index) for pain, Stiffness, and physical dysfunction, Quadriceps strength test for quadriceps strength and Active knee extension test for hamstrings flexibility. Paired t-test and independent t-test were used to analyze both groups' pre-test and post-results. The study concluded that Group A showed more significant improvement in knee pain (t=3.862, p<0.05), extension range of motion (t=5.983, p<0.05), and hamstrings flexibility (t=5.983, p<0.05) compared to Group B. However, there was no significant difference in improvement among the groups when compared between both groups. Hence, the intervention in Group A was more effective in decreasing pain and increasing knee extension range of motion and hamstrings flexibility in OA knee patients.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".