Knee braces and foot orthoses multimodal 3‐month treatment of medial knee osteoarthritis in a randomised crossover trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Immediate biomechanical and functional benefits of knee braces and lateral wedge foot orthoses (FO) are often reported on patients with medial knee osteoarthritis. However, the effectiveness of their combined use in a longer-term orthotic treatment remains unclear. The aim was to evaluate pain, function, comfort and knee adduction moment (KAM) during the stance phase of gait with three modalities of orthotic treatment. METHODS: Twenty-two patients with knee osteoarthritis were analysed in a randomised crossover trial including a knee brace with valgus and external rotation functions (VER), FO and their combined use (VER + FO). Western Ontario and McMaster Universities scale (WOMAC) and Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Scores and KAM during gait were obtained before and after each orthotic treatment of 3 months. Repeated measures analyses of variance contrasted the factors orthosis (VER, FO, VER + FO), treatment (pre and post) and wear (without and with) on pain, function, comfort and KAM. RESULTS: An interaction between orthosis and treatment on the WOMAC pain (effect size [ES] = 0.17) and a main effect on the pain visual analogue score (ES = 0.24) indicated that VER and VER + FO were more alleviating than FO. The three modalities of orthotic treatment significantly improved functional scores (ES > 0.2) and reduced discomfort (ES = 0.25). A significant multivariate interaction between orthosis and wear (ES = 0.73) showed that the KAM reduction while wearing the orthoses was more pronounced with the VER and VER + FO than the FO. CONCLUSION: The VER-brace obtained more effectiveness than FO on pain and KAM after 3 months for medial knee osteoarthritis and the combined treatment did not substantially improve biomechanical and functional outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic study level I randomised crossover trial.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".