Stair-Climbing Training with Interferential Electrotherapy Improves Knee Muscle Strength, Dynamic Postural Stability, Pain Score, and Physical Activity in Patients with Knee Osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/Objective: This study aimed to compare the functional outcomes, such as knee muscle strength, dynamic postural stability, pain scores, and physical activity, in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA) on stair climbing training with and without interferential electrotherapy (IFE) for 12 weeks. Methods: A total of 40 knee OA patients with Kellgren–Lawrence (K–L) grade ≤ 2 were enrolled (20 stair-climbing training with IFE vs. 20 stair-climbing training without IFE). The knee quadriceps and hamstring muscle strengths were measured using an isokinetic device. The dynamic postural stability was assessed using postural stabilometry. The pain score was evaluated using the visual analog scale (VAS). Physical activity was assessed using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC). Results: The WOMAC score was significantly different (p < 0.019) between stair-climbing training with and without IFE in patients with knee OA, while knee muscle strength, dynamic postural stability, or pain score were not (all p > 0.05). Conclusion: Stair-climbing training with IFE was more beneficial for physical activity recovery than stair-climbing training without IFE. Therefore, clinicians and therapists should be aware that stair climbing, which can be practiced in daily life for the management of patients with knee OA, and the addition of IFE may improve physical activity.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".