<b>Comparison of Open vs. Closed Kinetic Chain Exercises in Knee Osteoarthritis Rehabilitation</b>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) is a prevalent degenerative joint disorder that significantly impairs pain levels, physical function, and quality of life, particularly among aging populations. Exercise therapy is central to conservative KOA management, yet debate persists regarding the comparative efficacy of open kinetic chain (OKC) versus closed kinetic chain (CKC) exercises in optimizing patient outcomes. Objective: This study aimed to compare the short-term effects of OKC and CKC exercise programs on pain, physical function, and quality of life in individuals with mild to moderate KOA. Methods: A randomized controlled trial enrolled 40 participants aged 40–60 years with Kellgren-Lawrence grade I–II KOA, randomly assigned to either an OKC group (n=20) performing non-weight-bearing quadriceps exercises or a CKC group (n=20) engaging in weight-bearing functional exercises, thrice weekly for 12 weeks. Primary outcomes included pain and function assessed by the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and secondary outcomes were measured using the Short Form-36 (SF-36) health survey. Data were analyzed via repeated measures ANOVA with significance set at p<0.05. Results: Both groups improved significantly over time; however, the CKC group exhibited greater reductions in WOMAC pain (mean difference -1.5, p=0.01) and function scores (mean difference -3.5, p=0.001), alongside superior gains in SF-36 physical health (mean difference +5.4, p=0.01). Mental health scores improved similarly without significant between-group differences. Conclusion: While both exercise modalities benefit KOA rehabilitation, CKC exercises demonstrate superior efficacy in reducing pain and enhancing physical function and quality of life, advocating their preferential inclusion in clinical practice.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.009 | 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".