The Effects of muscle energy technique along conventional physical therapy after mesenchymal stem cell transplantation in knee osteoarthritis patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To assess the efficacy of muscle energy technique (MET) in combination with conventional physical therapy compared to conventional physical therapy alone following mesenchymal stem cell transplantation in knee osteoarthritis (OA) patients. Methods: A randomized clinical trial was conducted at the Institute of Regenerative Medicine (IRM), Islamabad, Pakistan, for a time duration of 11 months from September 2022 to July 2023. Using non-probability purposive sampling, patients were randomly allocated to two treatment groups. Three treatment sessions per week for two weeks, lasting thirty minutes each, were administered with follow-up after one month. Numerical Pain Rating Scale, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index, ROM, were used to assess the Pain, functional status, and Range of motion. Within Group-Analysis was done using Friedman with Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, while Mann-Whitney U-tests determined inter-group differences. Results: With-in Group-Analysis, showed statistically significant (p<0.05) at baseline, after one week, after two weeks, and after one month follow up in both the muscle energy technique (MET) Group-And conventional therapy group for NPRS, KNEE FLEXION ROM, and WOMAC. Between-Group-Analysis, also showed significant (p<0.05) for knee pain and WOMAC scores. Conclusions: Both groups are effective for improving knee pain, and functional limitation in knee osteoarthritis patients. However, MET Group along with conventional therapy showed marked effects on improving knee pain, knee flexion ROM, and functional limitations after mesenchymal stem cell transplantation in knee osteoarthritis patients. doi: https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.40.11.9605 How to cite this: Ashraf F, Anwar K, Arshad H. Effects of muscle energy technique along conventional physical therapy after mesenchymal stem cell transplantation in knee osteoarthritis patients. Pak J Med Sci. 2024;40(11):2558-2564. doi: https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.40.11.9605 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
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) | 0.000 | 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".