Efficacy of Mulligan MWMs along with Conventional Physical Therapy in Knee Osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Knee osteoarthritis is a prevalent degenerative joint disease that impairs mobility and causes significant pain, particularly in the aging population. Conservative management, including physical therapy, remains a cornerstone of treatment. The addition of Mulligan Mobilization with Movement (MWM) to conventional therapy has been proposed to improve outcomes, though its efficacy had not been robustly quantified. Objective: The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy of Mulligan MWM in conjunction with conventional physical therapy to conventional physical therapy alone in reducing pain and stiffness and improving functional outcomes in patients with grade 2 knee osteoarthritis. Methods: This randomized clinical trial included 28 participants with grade 2 knee osteoarthritis, randomly allocated into two groups: one receiving Mulligan MWM alongside conventional physical therapy and the other receiving only conventional physical therapy. The intervention lasted one month, with assessments conducted at baseline, two weeks, and four weeks using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) as outcome measures. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 25. Results: The MWM plus physical therapy group exhibited a greater reduction in VAS scores (baseline: 6.71, SD 1.729 to week 4: 2.21, SD 1.051) compared to the physical therapy alone group (baseline: 7.14, SD 1.562 to week 4: 3.86, SD 0.663), with a significant mean difference (P<0.001). Similarly, WOMAC scores for pain, stiffness, and physical function significantly improved in the MWM group compared to the physical therapy group at week 4 (Pain: 2.79 vs. 6.86, Stiffness: 1.14 vs. 3.36, Function: 9.79 vs. 27.57, all P<0.001). Conclusion: Mulligan MWM combined with conventional physical therapy was more effective than conventional physical therapy alone in reducing pain, stiffness, and improving functional outcomes in patients with grade 2 knee osteoarthritis. These results support the inclusion of MWM in the management of knee osteoarthritis.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".