The Effects of Two Interventions between Elastic Therapeutic Taping with Exercise and Sham Taping with Exercise on Pain Intensity, Knee Disability Reduction, Leg Strength, and Functional Ability Improvement for Gonarthrosis Patients at the Moderate Level
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effects of elastic therapeutic taping with exercise on the pain, disability, muscle strength, and functionality of knee in patients with moderate knee osteoarthritis (OA) compared with the sham taping technique with exercise.METHODS: Eighty patients with moderate knee OA (Kellgren-Lawrence grade II-III) were randomized and separated into 2 groups, including an elastic therapeutic taping group and a sham taping group. Both groups received the same homework exercise. The assessments were performed at baseline, and 2 weeks and 12 weeks after the elastic therapeutic taping application. Pain level, the Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) scale, muscle strength, Time Up and Go and Sit-to-Stand were used for the evaluation.RESULTS: Patients that received elastic therapeutic taping and the sham taping technique with exercise demonstrated improvement in pain level, the WOMAC scale, muscle strength, Time Up and Go and Sit-to-Stand after 12 weeks of the applications, but the results showed a statistically significant difference in the outcome measurement of pain level, the WOMAC scale, and Time Up and Go between the 2 groups (p < 0.01, p = 0.03 and p = 0.03 respectively).CONCLUSION: Elastic therapeutic taping with exercise can be an effective intervention for pain relief, reduced knee disability, and Time Up and Go in patients with moderate knee OA when compared with the sham taping technique with the exercise 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 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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".