Comparing Outcomes of Telerehabilitation vs. In-Person Therapy in Knee Osteoarthritis Management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of telerehabilitation and in-person therapy in treating osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee in terms of pain management, functional improvement, and patient satisfaction. Method: A randomized controlled trial involved 120 participants with OA knee. Participants were randomly assigned to one of two groups: telerehabilitation (n = 60) or in-person therapy (n = 60). Both groups received a 12-week intervention program. The outcome measures were a patient satisfaction survey, the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for pain. Assessments were conducted at baseline, six weeks, and twelve weeks. Result: The WOMAC scores and VAS pain ratings of both groups showed a substantial improvement from baseline at 6 and 12 weeks (p<0.001). At 12 weeks, the groups' WOMAC scores (p=0.78) and VAS pain ratings (p=0.63) did not differ statistically significantly. Patient satisfaction did not significantly differ between the two groups (p=0.52). Conclusion: This study concluded that there was significant improvement in stretching exercise than the calcaneal taping For patients with limited access to traditional rehabilitation facilities, telerehabilitation appears to be an effective alternative to in-person therapy for the treatment of knee OA.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".