Comparison of Neuromuscular Joint Facilitation and Quadriceps Strengthening Exercise in Knee Osteoarthritis: a Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: To compare the effect of neuromuscular joint facilitation (NJF) and quadriceps strengthening exercises on pain, physical function, static posture, and balance control in subjects with knee osteoarthritis. Design: Randomized controlled trial. Setting: Department of Physiotherapy, Manipal Hospitals, Bangalore. Participants: Subjects diagnosed with knee osteoarthritis according to the American College of Sports Medicine criteria. The mean age of subjects in the control group was 63.12 ± 8.08 years; in the experimental group was 61.77 ± 8.46 years. Interventions: The intervention group received NJF treatment twice a week for six weeks, and the control group received quadriceps strengthening exercises. Standard knee exercises were given as a home program to both groups. Outcome Measures: Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS), 30-second chair stand (30s-CST), and single leg stance (SLS) were used to assess physical function, static posture, and balance control, respectively, at the end of the sixth week. Results: Sixty subjects were randomly allocated to intervention and control groups. The experimental and control group showed a mean difference of 3.89 and 4.17 in NPRS, 4.19 and 4.17 in 30s-CST, 6.81 and 5.71 in SLS at the end of six weeks. This change was significant within both groups (p value .000) and not significant between groups (NPRS p value .303; 30s-CST p value .09; SLS p value .525) at the end of six weeks. Conclusions: NJF and quadriceps strengthening exercises effectively reduced pain and improved physical function, static posture, and balance control in subjects with knee osteoarthritis. Both groups had the same effect on all clinical variables at six weeks of follow-up. Hence, further studies with long term follow-up are warranted.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".