Additional effect of high-intensity laser therapy with conventional physiotherapy related to pain and function in patients with knee osteoarthritis: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 12-week follow-up study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: High-intensity laser therapy (HILT) is a relatively new form of Nd: YAG laser. The aim of the study is to investigate the additional benefits of HILT with conventional physiotherapy, related to pain and function, in patients with knee osteoarthritis (KOA). METHOD: The study comprised 43 knees from 31 patients of both genders with mean age 54.6 ± 6.22 (41-64) years. 53.49% of the knees were Kellgren Lawrence (KL) grade 2, and rest were KL grade 3 KOA. Group 1 (n = 21) received transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), hot packs (HP), exercises (EX), and HILT (Nd: yag-laser, 10 W). Group 2 (n = 22), received the same interventions but placebo HILT. All interventions were applied for 10 sessions. The Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Western Ontario & McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Questionnaire (WOMAC), and Lequesne Algofunctional Index (LAI) were administered before, after, and at 12-week follow-up. RESULTS: Baseline VAS, WOMAC, and LAI scores of the groups were similar (p > 0.05). After treatment and 12 weeks of follow-up, both groups had significant relief for VAS, WOMAC, LAI pain (respectively, p < 0.001) and function (p < 0.012), except LAI-walking distance (p = 0.415). Post-hoc analyses and mixed-effects models showed no significant differences between groups over time for all variables. CONCLUSIONS: HILT did not provide additional short- or mid-term benefits in pain or function when added to a conventional physiotherapy and exercise program in patients with stage 2 or 3 knee osteoarthritis under 65 years of age.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".