Effect of Kaltenborn Traction versus Mulligan Mobilization with Movement as an adjunct to Conventional Exercise on Pain and Functions in Knee Osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim: To compare effect of Kaltenborn Traction and Mulligan Mobilization with Movement (Mulligan MWM) along with Conventional Exercise on Pain and Functions in Knee Osteo Arthritis (OA) Patients. Design: A Randomized controlled Study. Methods: 60 knee OA patients diagnosed and fulfilling inclusion/exclusion criteria were randomly allocated into two groups (A and B), where Group A (n=30) received Kaltenborn Traction and Conventional Exercise, where Group B (n=30) received Mulligan MWM and Conventional Exercise. Both groups received 3 sessions on alternate days for a week. Patients Outcome Measures Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) for pain intensity and Modified Short-Form THE Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (Modified Short-Form WOMAC) for symptoms and functions, were taken before and at the end of 3 sessions of intervention/treatment. Results: Both the groups showed improvement in NPRS and Modified Short-Form WOMAC at end of 3 sessions. In Group A, NPRS score pain significantly reduced (p<0.0001) and Modified Short-Form WOMAC score also improved (p<0.0001). In Group B, NPRS score pain significantly reduced (p<0.0001) and Modified Short-Form WOMAC score also improved (0.0001). There was no statistical difference between both the groups on NPRS score (p=0.331) and Modified Short-Form WOMAC score (p=0.147) which is (p>0.05). Conclusion: Both Kaltenborn Traction and Mulligan MWM along with Conventional Exercise are equally effective and any of them can be used to treat knee OA patients to reduce pain and improve function.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".