Effectiveness of Foam Rolling with Hip Strengthening versus Conventional Treatment in Iliotibial Band Tightness Among Osteoarthritis Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The iliotibial band (ITB) tightness contributes to pain and functional limitations in osteoarthritis (OA) patients. The effectiveness of foam rolling (FR) combined with ITB stretching exercises versus conventional treatment methods targeting ITB tightness has not been thoroughly investigated. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of these modalities on passive range of motion (PROM) during hip adduction in OA patients. Methods: Three groups of OA patients (Foam Rolling alone-Group A, Conventional Exercises + Foam Rolling-Group B, and Hip strengthening + Foam Rolling-Group C) were assessed over 14 treatment sessions using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) scores and Ober's test for ITB tightness. Group A received foam rolling with hip strengthening, Group B underwent conventional treatment, and Group C was treated with a combination of methods. Results: All groups showed a marked decrease in WOMAC scores, indicating an improvement in pain and knee function. Group A exhibited a significant reduction in ITB tightness, with the mean Ober's test score initially increasing but then decreasing markedly by the 14th session. Group B and Group C also showed improvements, but Group A's protocol was the most effective in reducing ITB tightness. Conclusion: The study demonstrated that foam rolling with hip strengthening exercises is significantly effective in reducing ITB tightness and improving function in OA patients. This combination therapy may be considered a superior approach to conventional treatment methods for managing ITB-related symptoms in this population.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".