Efficacy of tissue-bone homeostasis manipulation on the gait and knee function for the patients with knee osteoarthritis: a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) was characterized by pain and limited joint function, which seriously affected the quality of life of patients. The vast majority of KOA was closely related to degeneration of the patellofemoral joint and abnormal patellar movement trajectory. Tissue-bone homeostasis manipulation (TBHM) could correct abnormal patellar movement trajectory on the basis of loosening soft tissue. However, there was little strong evidence to verify its efficacy on the patients with KOA. The study objective was to explore the efficacy of the TBHM on gait and knee function in the patients with KOA. METHODS: Sixty KOA patients were randomly assigned to either the joint mobilization (n = 30) or TBHM (n = 30) group. The joint mobilization group received joint mobilization, while the TBHM group received TBHM. For two groups, the patients participated in 30 min rehabilitation sessions thrice per week for 12 weeks. The primary outcome was biomechanical gait outcomes during walking, including step length, step velocity, double support, knee range of motion (ROM), and knee adduction moment (KAM). The secondary outcomes were the Western Ontario and McMaster Index (WOMAC) and 36-Item short- form health survey (SF-36), which reflected improvements in knee function and quality of life, respectively. At baseline and 12 weeks, evaluations were conducted and compared between groups. RESULTS: After a 12-week intervention, significant group differences were observed in KAM (p = 0.018), WOMAC-Pain (p = 0.043) and WOMAC-Stiffness (p = 0.026). A noteworthy finding was the presence of a significant interaction effect between group and time specifically observed in step velocity during gait (p = 0.046), WOMAC-Function (p = 0.013) and SF-36 (p = 0.027). Further analysis revealed a significant difference in step velocity (p = 0.034), WOMAC-Function (p = 0.025) and SF-36 (p = 0.042) during post-assessment between the two groups. Moreover, a significant time effect was observed across all outcomes of the two groups (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The TBHM intervention has better improved the gait, knee function, and quality of life in the patients with KOA. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ITMCTR, ITMCTR2200005507. Registered 06/01/2022, http://itmctr.ccebtcm.org.cn/zh-CN/Home/ProjectView?pid=09cdadad-0aef-41ee-81bd-a8dceb63f7f5 .
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".