Effect of Dynamic Balance Training on Physical Function and Proprioception in Individuals with Knee Osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Osteoarthritis (OA) is a prevalent joint disorder affecting synovial joints, particularly the knee. It leads to degeneration of cartilage, causing pain and reduced physical function. Effective treatment strategies are essential for managing symptoms and improving quality of life. Objective: To determine the effect of dynamic balance training on physical function and proprioception in individuals with knee osteoarthritis. Methods: This quasi-experimental trial was conducted at Riphah International University Lahore, Aziz Medical Clinic, and Ali Hospital, Mughal Pura Lahore. A total of 48 patients with anterior knee pain were recruited and divided into two groups: one receiving dynamic balance training and the other receiving conventional physical therapy (control). Non-probability convenience sampling was used. Outcomes were measured using NPRS, a goniometer, the Community Balance and Mobility Scale (CB&M), and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC). Knee proprioception was assessed by joint position sense using a universal goniometer, with the average of three angles taken for the final reading. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 25. Results: Significant differences were observed in joint proprioception between weight-bearing (WB) and non-weight-bearing (NWB) procedures. The mean difference for WB was -3.07 compared to -2.18 for NWB, with a higher relative error in WB (p < 0.05). Dynamic balance training resulted in greater reductions in NPRS scores and improvements in WOMAC scores compared to conventional physical therapy (p < 0.05). Conclusion: Dynamic balance training was more effective than conventional physical therapy in improving physical function and proprioception in individuals with 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 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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".