Effect of Total Resistance Exercises and Aquatic Exercises on Pain and Function of People With Knee Osteoarthritis: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate the effects of aquatic exercises (AEs) and total resistance exercises (TRX) on the pain and function of women with knee osteoarthritis. METHODS: This randomized controlled trial was conducted on 53 patients diagnosed with knee osteoarthritis. The patients were randomly allocated into 3 groups of TRX (n = 19), AEs (n = 18), and control (n = 16). The experimental groups received 8 weeks of TRX and AEs, and the control group only received medication. Outcomes were measured before, after 8-weeks of intervention, and after a 6-month follow-up. Outcomes were the visual analog scale (VAS), the quadriceps strength was examined by a dynamometer, the function was assessed using the Western Ontario and McMaster universities osteoarthritis index (WOMAC), functional capacity was measured using the timed up and go test (TUG), 40-meter walking speed (WS) test, and going up and down 8-stair (GUDS), and the quality of life (QOL) was evaluated using the SF-36. RESULTS: Pain and QOL improved significantly after the 8-week intervention and 6-month follow-up in both experimental groups (P < .05). However, quadriceps strength, TUG, WS, and GUDS improved significantly after the 8-week intervention and 6-month follow-up only in the TRX group (P < .05). In addition, the WOMAC improved only in the AEs group (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: The TRX intervention enhanced the strength and functional capacity of the patients with knee osteoarthritis more effectively compared to the AEs, while improving pain and QOL were similar to the AEs.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.008 | 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".