Comparative Evaluation of Sesame Oil Massage, Epsom Salt Hot Water Application, and their Combination for Managing Knee Joint Pain in Homemakers: A Research Protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Knee pain is a common musculoskeletal disorder, particularly observed among homemakers who engage in prolonged standing and repetitive activities. The burden of knee pain significantly affects mobility, Quality of Life (QOL), and daily functioning. Osteoarthritis (OA) remains the leading cause of knee pain, and non-pharmacological interventions are increasingly being recognised as safe and effective alternatives to conventional treatments. Need of the study: Homemakers, due to their daily household activities, have a higher tendency to develop knee pain, which often goes unaddressed because of financial constraints and limited access to healthcare. Prolonged use of pharmacological management for knee pain is associated with adverse effects, thereby necessitating alternative, cost-effective, and community-based interventions. Sesame oil is known for its anti-inflammatory and antioxidant properties, while Epsom salt, rich in magnesium sulphate, promotes muscle relaxation and circulation. Despite these potential benefits, limited research has compared their effectiveness when used individually and in combination. This study aims to fill this gap and provide evidence-based recommendations for the management of knee pain in homemakers. Aim: To compare and evaluate the effectiveness of Epsom salt hot water application, sesame oil massage, and their combination for knee pain management among homemakers. Materials and Methods: A three-arm parallel Randomised Controlled Trial (RCT) will be conducted from May 2024 to May 2026 in selected rural areas of the Wardha district, India. A total of 126 homemakers aged 40-60 years with mild to moderate knee pain will be randomly assigned to three groups of 42 participants each. Group A will receive sesame oil massage, Group B will receive hot water fomentation with Epsom salt, and Group C will receive a combination of both interventions. Outcome measures will include pain severity and functional status, assessed at baseline (Day 0) and after three weeks of intervention. Pain severity will be evaluated using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), and functional status will be assessed using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC). For intergroup and intragroup comparisons, one-way ANOVA and paired t-tests, respectively, will be applied. Additionally, for pairwise comparisons, post-hoc Tukey’s test will be used. Associations between demographic variables and intervention outcomes will be analysed using Pearson’s Chi-square test. Statistical significance will be set at p<0.05.
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 | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.033 | 0.003 |
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".