Comparison of the effects of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation and interferential current therapies in central sensitization in patients with knee osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: This study is primarily aimed to determine whether transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and interferential current (IFC) treatments have any effect on central sensitization (CS) in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA) and to investigate which treatment is more effective. Methods: In this randomized controlled trial, 80 patients were randomized into four treatment groups: TENS, Plasebo-TENS, IFC, and Plasebo-IFC. All interventions were applied 5 times a week for 2 weeks. Primary outcome was pressure pain threshold (PPT), which is accepted as the objective indicator of CS, at the painful knee and at the shoulder as a painless distant point. Other outcome measures were the visual analog scale (VAS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, Timed Up and Go Test, pain catastrophizing scale, Beck Depression Inventory, and Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia. Results: All assessment parameters were improved, without a significant difference among the groups except PPT. PPT scores were significantly improved in TENS and IFC groups when compared with the sham groups at 2 weeks and 3 months. In addition, this improvement was even more pronounced in the TENS group. Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that the patient's inclusion in the TENS group, an initial high PPT, and an initial low VAS score were independent risk factors for improvement in the PPT. Conclusions: This study shows that TENS and IFC reduced pain sensitivity as compared to placebo groups in patients with knee OA. This effect was more pronounced in the TENS group.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".