Effects Of Hot-compress And Low-medium-frequency-electrotherapy On Pain And Dynamic Stability Among Adults With Knee Osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) is one of the most common degenerative diseases among older adults, resulting in pain and reduced dynamic stability during walking, which severely limits activities of daily living and locomotion ability. PURPOSE: This study aimed to investigate the effects of an 8-week hot compress (TC) combined with low-medium frequency electrotherapy (LMFE) on pain and dynamic stability during walking among older adults with KOA. METHODS: Twenty-nine older adults with KOA were recruited and randomly divided into TC + LMFE (n = 15,69.4 ± 2.8 years,159.9 ± 6.0 cm, and 68.9 ± 8.7 kg) and TC (n = 14,69.1 ± 2.0 years,161.0 ± 6.9 cm, and 68.2 ± 9.7 kg) groups. The TC + LMFE group received TC + LMFE treatment, and the TC group received TC treatment for 8 weeks with three 40-minute sessions per week. All participants were assessed for pain and dynamic stability before (week0) and after (week9) the intervention. The pain score was recorded using the “walk on the ground” subscale of Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC), and dynamic stability was recorded by a twelve-camera motion analysis system synchronized with two force plates. Two-way ANOVA with repeated measures was employed to analyze the data. RESULTS: Significant group-by-intervention interactions were detected in the pain score (p = 0.028, η2p = 0.176) and margin of stability (MOS) (p = 0.011, η2p = 0.217). Post hoc comparisons showed that compared with week0, the pain score (TC+ LMFE group: week0 = 5.40 ± 2.27, week9 = 2.20 ± 0.98, p < 0.001, d = 1.828; TC group: week0 = 4.93 ± 1.91, week9 = 3.29 ± 1.28, p = 0.002, d = 1.012) was decreased in both groups at week9, while the MOS (week0 = -0.12 ± 0.17, week9 = -0.04 ± 0.11, p < 0.001, d = 1.117) was decreased only in the TC+ LMFE group at week9. The pain score of the TC+ LMFE group was lower than that of the TC group at week9 (TC+ LMFE group: week9 = 2.20 ± 0.98, TC group: week9 = 3.29 ± 1.28, p = 0.019, d = 0.954). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the TC, the TC+ LMFE for 8 weeks was more effective in relieving pain and improving dynamic stability during walking among older adults with KOA. It is recommended that LMFE should be adopted after TC to enhance the effects of KOA rehabilitation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".