MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Efficacy Of Cox Flexion Distraction Decompression Versus Low Level Laser Therapy In Managing Knee Osteoarthritis: A Comparative Randomized Control Study.

2024· article· en· W4402556540 on OpenAlexaffabout
Luigi Albano, Chad A. Sutherland, A. R. Potvin, Jim R. Potvin

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLaser Applications in Dentistry and Medicine
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WindsorMcMaster UniversityCanadian Chiropractic Association
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOsteoarthritisMedicineDistractionRandomized controlled trialDecompressionPhysical therapyLow level laser therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationSurgeryLaser therapyLaserPsychologyAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Efficacy of Cox Flexion Distraction Decompression versus Low Level Laser Therapy in Managing Knee Osteoarthritis: A Comparative Randomized Control Study. Luigi Albano1, Chad A. Sutherland2, Aidan Potvin2, Jim R. Potvin31 Walkerville Chiropractic, Windsor, Ontario, Canada2 University of Windsor, Windsor, Ontario, Canada3 McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada Osteoarthritis (OA) is a degenerative, “wear and tear” joint disease, and the most commonform of arthritis. Symptomatic knee OA (KOA) affects over 14 million people in the US. Symptoms of OA, combined with associated walking disability, increases the risk of premature death from cardiovascular disease. Increasing physical activity for people diagnosed with KOA reduces knee pain, and therefore, it is imperative for health care practitioners to find new rehabilitation techniques that enable patients to return to regular physical activity. The Cox Flexion Distraction Decompression (Cox® FDD) method is a newly applied, promising treatment option for people with KOA. PURPOSE: To determine the effectiveness of the Cox FDD in reducing knee joint pain and increasing knee joint function for individuals diagnosed with KOA. METHODS: 20 participants were placed into two treatment protocols: (1) Cox FDD (12 participants) and (2) Low Level Laser Therapy (LLLT; 8 participants). All participants had a Kellgren-Lawrence grade of II or III and had no surgical history on the affected knee. Participants received 3 protocol treatments per week for 4 weeks and completed 3 questionnaires (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities OA index (WOMAC), Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS), and Numeric Pain Scale), active and passive knee joint range of motion, and a timed stair climb test pre and post intervention. RESULTS: There were significant main effect of time (pre-post) showing improved outcomes for the WOMAC (p < .0005), LEFS (p < .005), Numeric Pain Scale (p < .0001), and stair climb test (p < .005). There were no significant main or interaction effects of protocol (Cox FDD – LLLT) for any of the dependent variables. CONCLUSION: Like the laser treatment, the Cox FDD protocol demonstrated positive results after 4 weeks of treatment and has the potential to become a recognized treatment option for knee OA patients.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.326 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & ExerciseSame topicLaser Applications in Dentistry and MedicineFrench-language works237,207