MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387901863 · doi:10.7759/cureus.47586

The Effect of Contrast Bath Therapy and Knee Pad Device on Pain, Range of Motion, and Functional Disability in Patients With Osteoarthritis Knee: A Randomized Control Trial

2023· article· en· W4387901863 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Pranali Fokmare, Pratik Phansopkar

Bibliographic record

VenueCureus · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineWOMACOsteoarthritisRange of motionPhysical therapyVisual analogue scaleRandomized controlled trialKnee JointKnee painPhysical medicine and rehabilitationSurgeryAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and objective A degenerative joint condition mostly affecting the weight-bearing joints is osteoarthritis (OA). The majority of the time, it involves the knee joint. Pain and stiffness are common in grade 1 and 2 OA. And that's the main reason people ask for help. Physiotherapy treatment can be helpful for symptomatic management of early OA. Along with exercises, contrast bath therapy (CBT) is a therapeutic alternative to medication to alleviate pain and stiffness in OA. Many studies have been done using the traditional water immersion CBT. However, there is a paucity of studies on contrast therapy given using a device. This study intends to find the effect of a knee pad device (KPD) on pain, range of motion, and functional disability in knee OA patients when compared with CBT. Methods About 60 patients having unilateral knee OA were selected and randomly divided into two groups: group A received CBT for 20 minutes, and group B was treated with a KPD for 20 minutes and the Otago exercise program was given in both groups for 30 minutes. Both groups received treatment for three sessions per week for two weeks. Outcome measures used for assessment at baseline and post-treatment were visual analog scale (VAS), knee range of motion, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) scale, and distance covered in a two-minute walk test. Results Both the groups showed significant improvement post-treatment (p < 0.05). Group B showed more significant improvement when compared with group A. The enhancement in VAS (2.39, p < 0.020), range of motion (2.11, p < 0.039), WOMAC (2.09, p < 0.04), and two-minute walk test (2.03, p < 0.046) showed improvement in functional ability. Conclusion The findings of this study showed that both groups showed improvement following treatment, but that the use of a KPD in combination with strengthening and balance retraining is more efficient in reducing pain and enhancing quality of life in patients with grade 1 or 2 knee OA than conventional CBT.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCureusSame topicOsteoarthritis Treatment and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207