Comparison of the Efficacy of Stretching and Isometric Exercises Versus Manual Traction and Isometric Exercises on Knee Pain and Functional Activities in Tibiofemoral Osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Osteoarthritis OA is a common degenerative condition characterized by pain functional impairment and reduced quality of life. Outcome measures commonly used include the Visual Analogue Scale VAS for pain assessment and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index WOMAC for evaluating pain stiffness and physical function.Objectives The objectives were to evaluate the efficacy of stretching and manual traction combined with isometric exercises in improving pain and functional activities and to compare their efficacy in subjects with tibiofemoral osteoarthritis.Methods This experimental study was conducted on 30 subjects fulfilling the inclusion criteria. The subjects were divided into two groups Stretching with isometric exercises n15 and Manual traction with isometric exercises n15. Both the groups received treatment and the outcomes were measured after three weeks of treatment. Paired t-test was used to analyze significance within the groups and unpaired t-test was used to compare both the groups.Results The results showed a statistically significant improvement in pain and functional activity P0.01 in both the groups. Intergroup analysis showed significant difference in all the variables P lt0.05 in manual traction group compared to stretching group. The level of significance was set at P lt0.05.Conclusion Both the groups demonstrated improvement after three weeks of intervention but the manual traction with isometric exercises group showed better mean difference and percentage improvement compared to the other group in all the tested variables.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".