Efficacy of interferential current therapy plus exercise compared to sham interferential current plus exercise for pain relief in patients with knee osteoarthritis: A randomised controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of interferential current (IFC) therapy combined with quadriceps strengthening exercise versus sham IFC plus exercise for pain relief and functional improvement in patients with knee osteoarthritis. STUDY DESIGN: Double-blind randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Outpatient rehabilitation clinic. SUBJECTS: Knee osteoarthritis patients aged 50-85 years with a pain score ≥4/10. METHODS: One hundred forty-four participants were randomly allocated into the study and control groups. The study group received 20 min of IFC therapy (carrier frequency: 4000 Hz, beat frequency: 100 Hz) five times per week for three weeks, while the control group received sham IFC following the same protocol, followed by 10 min of exercise in both groups. Outcome measures included Numeric Rating Scale for Pain, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Index (WOMAC) score, gait speed, and EuroQol-Five Dimensions-Five Levels questionnaire assessed at baseline, Week 3, and Week 6. Adverse events and patient satisfaction were evaluated at Week 3. RESULTS: At Week 3, the study group demonstrated statistical improvement compared to the control group for Numeric Rating Scale for Pain, WOMAC Total, WOMAC Pain, and WOMAC Stiffness. The mean difference (95% confidence interval) between groups was 0.76 (0.21-1.30), 0.49 (0.03-0.95), 0.63 (0.13-1.13), and 0.62 (0.04-1.20), respectively. However, the mean differences between groups were below the Minimally Clinically Important Difference values for each outcome. Additionally, there were no significant differences between groups at Week 6 for any outcome measure. CONCLUSION: IFC had no effect on pain reduction and functional improvement in patients with mild to moderate 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 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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".