Effectiveness of Rhythmic Stabilization (PNF) vs. Conventional Physiotherapy in Knee Osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is a degenerative condition marked by pain, stiffness, reduced range of motion (ROM), and impaired proprioceptive accuracy, negatively impacting quality of life. Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation (PNF) stretching, particularly rhythmic stabilization, has shown potential for addressing these issues by stimulating mechanoreceptors and improving flexibility and pain management. This study compared the effectiveness of rhythmic stabilization PNF to conventional physiotherapy in managing Grade 2-3 knee OA. Thirty-six participants aged 40–60 were randomly assigned to Group A (rhythmic stabilization PNF) or Group B (conventional physiotherapy). Outcome measures included the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) and Visual Analog Scale (VAS). Results showed significant improvements in pain reduction, flexibility, and functional mobility in both groups, with Group A achieving superior outcomes. Rhythmic stabilization PNF emerges as an effective therapeutic option for knee OA, offering enhanced patient outcomes and better quality of life.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".