Comparative effectiveness of Tuina therapy versus manual physical therapy for knee osteoarthritis: a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Tuina therapy (Tuina) is commonly utilized for managing knee osteoarthritis (KOA), yet the available evidence is limited. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of Tuina compared to widely accepted manual physical therapy (mPT) for patients with KOA. METHODS: Between Oct 2019 and Oct 2021, patients with KOA (Kellgren-Lawrence score II or III) were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive Tuina or mPT, with eight 20-min sessions over 3 weeks. Assessments were performed at baseline, week 4, 8, and 16. The primary outcome was the change of total Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) from baseline to week 4. Secondary outcomes included WOMAC subscales, knee pain measures, performance-based tests, quality-of-life measures, and safety assessments. Patients, evaluators, and statisticians were blinded to treatment group assignment. All main analyses were by intention-to-treat. RESULTS: Of the 140 patients allocated to Tuina or mPT, 127 completed the treatment. There was significant intervention × time interaction observed in the WOMAC-total (F(2, 266) = 3.87, P = 0.02), there was no statistically significant between groups at week 4 (between-group difference: -1.00, 95%CI: -5.33 to 3.33, P = 0.79, Bonferroni correction). By week 8, Tuina showed significantly consistent improvement compared to mPT (between-group difference: -4.33, 95%CI: -8.34 to -0.31, P = 0.03, Bonferroni correction), whereas there were no statistically significant differences between groups at week 16 (between-group difference: 0.74, 95%CI: -3.67 to 5.15, P = 0.37, Bonferroni correction). Most secondary outcomes showed no significant between-group differences, except for the Timed Up and Go Test Time favoring mPT (0.94, 95%CI: 0.03 to 1.85, P = 0.04). No serious adverse events occurred. One patient in the mPT group took the medication and no patients received other therapies for KOA. CONCLUSIONS: Tuina produced beneficial effectiveness similar to mPT in treating KOA. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03966248, Registered on 29/05/2019, ClinicalTrials.gov.
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 | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".