Comparison of Physical Therapy and Orthosis on Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Medial Knee Osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION Orthosis and physical therapy are two conservative managements for knee osteoarthritis (OA), but the question is which is better for alleviating pain and improving function? The aim of this study was to compare two interventions of orthosis and physical therapy on pain and function in patients with knee OA. METHODS In this quasi-experimental study, 31 individuals with medial knee OA were recruited into two groups including orthosis group (combination of insole and brace [n = 14]) and physical therapy group (n = 17). Pain severity was measured by visual analog scale (VAS) and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) questionnaire. Also, daily activity was measured by the WOMAC questionnaire at baseline and after 6-week follow-up. Wilcoxon signed rank and Mann-Whitney U tests were used to determine significant difference for intragroup and intergroup comparisons, respectively. RESULTS The orthosis group (using both knee brace and LWLs) had a better result for pain score related to VAS than the physical therapy group immediately after and 6 weeks of using the intervention, with a significant difference between the two groups ( P = 0.006). Regarding the WOMAC items including pain and daily activity, both groups had significant differences after the 6-week period of using the intervention, with no significant difference between the groups. CONCLUSIONS Based on the findings, pain and daily activity related to the WOMAC questionnaire were improved in both orthosis and physical therapy groups, with no differences between the two interventions. The orthosis group had better results in pain related to VAS. CLINICAL RELEVANCE The aim of this study was to find whether physical therapy or orthosis best improves pain and function of knee OA 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 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) | 0.001 | 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".