Effect of Pulsed Electromagnetic Field and Microwave Therapy on Pain and Physical Function in Older Adults With Knee Osteoarthritis: A Randomized Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The objective was to examine the adjuvant effect of active pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) versus microwave (MW) therapy, as well as sham PEMF, in addressing pain and improving functionality for treating knee osteoarthritis (KOA). METHODS: This was a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial. Individuals diagnosed with KOA were assigned to an intervention combining an exercise program (EX) with active PEMF, MW, or sham PEMF. The main outcomes were pain, reported on a visual analogue scale (VAS), and functionality, assessed using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis (WOMAC) questionnaire, and the Timed Up and Go test (TUG). The outcomes were measured preintervention, immediately postintervention, and at 1 and 4 months of follow-up (FU). RESULTS: Sixty individuals (n = 83 knees) were evaluated. Significant between-group differences were found in WOMAC stiffness (rmMANOVA (F(2,77) = 4.33, P = .017, partial η 2 = 0.10)). A notable interaction effect between group and time was found for the WOMAC pain score (rmMANOVA (F(2, 77) = 3.14, P = .049, partial η 2 = 0.07)). After 4 months, the PEMF + EX group demonstrated superior pain relief compared to the sham PEMF + EX (WOMAC pain "mean difference ± standard error between-groups": -3.2 ± 1.2, P = .028) and MW + EX (VAS pain: -2.1 ± 0.9, P = .042) groups. PEMF + EX perceived less stiffness than did the sham PEMF + EX in both the pre-FU (WOMAC stiffness: -1.6 ± 0.6, P = .047), 1-month FU (-1.7 ± 0.6, P = .015) and 4-month FU (-1.4 ± 0.6, P = .038), with no changes in the MW + EX group. WOMAC function score showed greater improvement in the PEMF + EX group compared to the MW + EX group at 4-month of FU (-9.0 ± 3.6, P = .039). Only PEMF + EX showed a positive effect on the TUG score at 1-month FU (-1.7 ± 0.5, P = <.001) and 4-month of FU (1.9 ± 0.5, P = .020). CONCLUSIONS: The application of PEMF could be a useful adjuvant treatment to exercise programs to further decrease pain and improve knee stiffness and function in individuals with KOA in the medium term compared to MW and sham PEMF.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".