MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408278249 · doi:10.71000/ep3k1a42

COMPARING THE EFFECT OF TOE-IN GAIT MODIFICATION ALONG WITH CONVENTIONAL PHYSIOTHERAPY IN PEOPLE WITH MEDIAL KNEE OSTEOARTHRITIS

2025· article· en· W4408278249 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Areeba Naseer, Qurba Kiran, Samra Anwar, Aisha Siddiqua, Syed Saqlain Babar, Sidra Jamal, Syeda Sabahat Batool, Muhammad Shazib Butt

Bibliographic record

VenueInsights-Journal of Health and Rehabilitation · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOsteoarthritisGaitPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicinePhysical therapyKnee JointSurgeryAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Medial knee osteoarthritis (OA) is a progressive joint disorder characterized by pain, stiffness, and reduced mobility, significantly impacting daily activities and quality of life. Conventional physiotherapy remains a primary non-surgical treatment, focusing on pain relief and functional improvement. However, biomechanical interventions, such as gait modification, have shown potential in redistributing joint loads and alleviating symptoms. Toe-in gait modification has been proposed as an adjunct to standard physiotherapy, potentially enhancing clinical outcomes by reducing medial knee loading and knee adduction moment (KAM). Objective: This study investigates the additional benefits of integrating toe-in gait modification with conventional physiotherapy in individuals with medial knee OA. Methods: A randomized controlled trial was conducted at Al Madinah Medical Center and Sukoon Rehab Center, enrolling 34 participants diagnosed with medial knee OA. Participants were randomly assigned to two intervention groups: Group A received conventional physiotherapy, while Group B underwent conventional physiotherapy with toe-in gait modification. The intervention was administered three times per week for eight weeks. Outcomes were assessed using the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC). Data were analyzed using parametric statistical tests. Results: At baseline, the mean pain score (NPRS) was 7.30 (SD = 0.984) in Group A and 7.86 (SD = 1.219) in Group B. By the eighth week, pain scores decreased to 4.45 (SD = 1.051) and 4.39 (SD = 1.00), respectively (p < 0.01). Functional outcomes also improved, with WOMAC scores declining from 40.53 (SD = 4.888) in Group A and 43.29 (SD = 5.047) in Group B at baseline to 23.06 (SD = 7.301) and 21.35 (SD = 2.029) by week eight (p < 0.01). Group B exhibited slightly superior improvements in both pain and function. Conclusion: Toe-in gait modification, when combined with conventional physiotherapy, demonstrated significant improvements in pain reduction and functional enhancement in individuals with medial knee OA. While both interventions were effective, the addition of gait modification provided slightly greater benefits, suggesting its potential as a complementary strategy in OA management. Further research is required to explore long-term effects and optimize individualized rehabilitation approaches.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.279 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInsights-Journal of Health and RehabilitationSame topicOsteoarthritis Treatment and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207