EMMATKA trial: the effects of mobilization with movement following total knee arthroplasty in women: a single-blind randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mobilization with Movement (MWM) is an examination and management approach for correcting the intra-articular translational and rotational movements to facilitate the active physiological movement. The study aimed to determine the effects of MWM on Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA) using a randomized controlled trial (RCT) design. METHODS: The trial is registered (ISRCTN ref: 13,028,992). A blinded examiner assessed patients at pre-surgical (before TKA), post-surgical (at 3-weeks post-TKA), 6-weeks and 6-months post-TKA. Participants were randomly assigned to receive MWM (six sessions, between 3 and 6 weeks post-TKA) plus standard rehabilitation (intervention group) or standard rehabilitation alone (control group) of outpatient rehabilitation including range of motion and strengthening exercises, cycling, gait and stair training. Outcome measures were range of motion (goniometer), pain (visual analogue scales), physical function (Timed Up and Go (TUG)), a 15-m walk test, and health status (Western Ontario and McMaster (WOMAC) Osteoarthritis Index). Change in outcome measures from post-surgical to 6 weeks and 6 months post-TKA were compared between groups. The primary outcome was change in knee flexion range of motion at 6 weeks. RESULTS: ) respectively) (both p < 0.05). There were no differences between groups in secondary outcomes. CONCLUSION: Introducing MWM for TKA rehabilitation has greater benefits for women post-TKA in increasing knee joint flexion range of motion than the standard rehabilitation programs in the short and medium-term. This evidence-based approach offers a promising adjunctive intervention for optimizing recovery and rehabilitation process following TKA in women. Clinicians should consider including MWM approach in post-TKA rehabilitation programs. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: I.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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".