MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401252615 · doi:10.3233/thc-240456

Efficacy of hip abductors exercise training combined with repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on knee osteoarthritis: A randomized controlled trial

2024· article· en· W4401252615 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Changfeng Cheng, Jiening Wang, Kun Yang, Xubo Wu, Xue Ren, Tiantian Liu, Zhongzhi Zhao, Beibei Zhang, Bitao Ma, Liming Jiang

Bibliographic record

VenueTechnology and Health Care · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersShanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine
KeywordsMedicineOsteoarthritisWOMACRandomized controlled trialPhysical therapyTranscranial magnetic stimulationCelecoxibPhysical medicine and rehabilitationVisual analogue scaleRange of motionInternal medicineStimulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Knee osteoarthritis is a common degenerative joint disease where a single treatment method often fails to fully alleviate symptoms. Hence, finding effective non-invasive combined treatment approaches is particularly crucial. OBJECTIVE: The efficacy of treating knee osteoarthritis with hip abductors exercise training combined with repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation was assessed through functional scales and objective evaluation methods. METHODS: In this four-week randomized clinical trial, 160 patients meeting inclusion criteria were randomly assigned 1:1 to group A to receive oral celecoxib and group B to receive a combination of hip abductors exercise training and repeated transcranial magnetic stimulation. The primary outcome was the western Ontario and McMaster universities osteoarthritis index. The secondary outcomes include Visual Analogue Scale, knee outcome survey activities of daily living scale, Active Range of Motion, and the Quadriceps Angle, the tibiofemoral angle, peak adductor moment, the integrated electromyography and root mean square of the surface electromyography of the lower extremity muscles. Paired sample t test was used for Within-Group comparison of outcome indicators, and independent sample t test was used for Between-Group comparison. RESULTS: Of the 160 randomly assigned patients, 150 completed the study. After 4 weeks, the WOMAC index decreased from 61 ± 10.83 to 40.55 ± 7.58 in the combined treatment group and from 60.97 ± 10.18 to 47.7 ± 10.13 in the celecoxib group. The effect of the combined treatment group was significantly higher than that in the celecoxib group (P< 0.001). In the combined treatment group, the score of knee joint daily living scale increased (P< 0.001), the active range of motion increased (P< 0.001), the quadriceps angle decreased (P< 0.001), the tibiofemoral angle increased (P< 0.001), and the peak adduction moment decreased (P< 0.001), integrated electromyography and root mean square increased (P< 0.001), and the effect was better than that of celecoxib group (P< 0.001). The visual analog scale score in celecoxib group was lower (P< 0.001) and knee outcome survey activities of daily living scale was higher (P< 0.001). The incidence of treatment-related adverse events was 10% in the celecoxib group and 2.5% in the combined treatment group, all of which were mild. CONCLUSIONS: Hip abductors exercise training combined with repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation can enhance abduction muscle strength, improve mobility, reduce joint pain, and enhance quality of life. This combined approach shows superior clinical effectiveness compared to oral celecoxib.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.276 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTechnology and Health CareSame topicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesFrench-language works237,207