Abstract No: 327 Effectiveness of Pilates and Otago Exercise on Pain, Functional Status and Balance in Patients with Osteoarthritis of Knee Joint
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: There is a lack in evidence- based literatures to show the comparative effects of Pilates exercise and Otago exercise are studied on pain, functional status and balance. Hence, the need arises to compare the effect of Pilates and Otago exercise for reducing pain, improving functional status and balance in patient with osteoarthritis of knee joint. Relevance: Pilates exercise is capable to strengthen muscle of the core and postural alignment. Otago exercise emphasizes lower limb functional strength and balance. Together both exercises can help to reducing pain, improving strength, functional status, flexibility and balance. Participants: Total 10 participants (both male and female) were recruited according to inclusion and exclusion criteria with the age group of 50-65 years on the basis of convenience sampling method and divided into two groups: Group A and Group B. Method: Group A received Pilates with conventional therapy, Group B received Otago with conventional therapy for 2 weeks (5 days/week). Outcome measures used were Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) and Time Up and Go Test (TUG). Analysis: According to normality test, tests were applied for within group (paired t-test) and between group (unpaired t-test). Results: Both the groups shows statistically significant improvement in WOMAC and TUG(p<0.05). Between groups no statistically significant difference was found. Conclusion: Pilates exercise and Otago exercise were equally effective in reducing pain and improving functional status & balance in patients with osteoarthritis. Implication: Both exercise Pilates and Otago allows healthcare professionals to tailor interventions for knee osteoarthritis, reducing pain, improving functional status and balance, ultimately improving patient outcomes and encouraging active participation in rehabilitation.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.013 | 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".