Evaluation of the efficacy of transfer energy capacitive and resistive therapy in patients with knee osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/aim: This study aimed to compare the therapeutic efficacy of conventional physical therapy (CPT) methods for knee osteoarthritis (OA) and transfer energy capacitive and resistive (TECAR) therapy, a relatively new and increasingly used treatment modality, based on patient clinical outcomes assessments. Materials and methods: Two groups of 54 patients, aged 40 to 75, were randomly assigned. CPT was given to both groups. In addition to CPT, Group 2 underwent TECAR therapy for six sessions, three times a week for two weeks. The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) was used to measure the disability and pain levels of each patient before and at the end of treatment and at 1 month and 3 months. Additionally, goniometric measurements of each patient's knee joint range of motion and isometric quadriceps muscle strength were taken. Results: Significant improvements were noted in the VAS, WOMAC, and isometric quadriceps strength ratings in both groups between the pre- and posttreatment follow-ups. However, there was no discernible difference between the groups. Conclusion: For the conservative treatment of OA in the knee, TECAR therapy may be a helpful therapeutic approach.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".