Enhancing rehabilitation outcomes in chondromalacia Patella: The impact of combining manipulative therapy with a structured exercise program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Chondromalacia patella (CMP) is characterized by cartilage degeneration in the patellofemoral joint, often causing anterior knee pain and impaired knee function. Objective This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of manipulative therapy in patients diagnosed with CMP. Methods In this prospective randomized study, 40 patients diagnosed with CMP were randomly assigned to the manipulative therapy group or the control group. Both groups underwent strengthening and stretching exercises targeting the knee and hip muscles. Additionally, the manipulative therapy group received manipulative therapy focusing on the thoracolumbar, lumbopelvic, and sacroiliac joints three times a week. Pain intensity was measured using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), while disability was assessed using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC). Active knee flexion was recorded, muscle performance was evaluated using the Stair Climbing Test (SCT) and Horizontal Jump Test (HJT), and balance was assessed using the Star Excursion Balance Test (SEBT). Results Both groups showed significant improvements in VAS, active knee flexion, WOMAC scores, SCT, HJT, and SEBT outcomes. However, the manipulative therapy group demonstrated significantly greater improvements than the control group in disability (WOMAC scores, p < 0.001, d = 1.93), horizontal jump performance ( p = 0.03, d = 1.57), and balance (SEBT outcomes, p < 0.001, d = 1.60). Conclusion By integrating manipulative therapy with strengthening and stretching exercises targeting the knee and hip muscles, clinicians can offer a multifaceted intervention that addresses the biomechanical and neurophysiological aspects of the condition, enhancing the rehabilitation process and functional recovery in patients with CMP.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".