EFFECT OF ACUPRESSURE VERSUS PHYSIOTHERAPY ON SYMPTOMS OF OSTEOARTHRITIS KNEE: A COMPARATIVE STUDY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: To determine the effect of acupressure and physiotherapy in reducing symptoms of osteoarthritis knee with comparison of the effectiveness of acupressure and physiotherapy. Methods: 60 Patients with symptomatic osteoarthritis of the knee were randomized to two treatment groups. Group one had acupressure and group second received physiotherapy. Patients in both groups were taking their stable dose of NSAIDs. Interventions: Patients receiving acupressure or physiotherapy were treated twice weekly over two months. Patients were assessed before treatment and after two months treatment, using visual analogue pain scale (VAS), oxford knee score (OKS) questionnaire and Western Ontario and McMaster (WOMAC) questionnaire for osteoarthritis knee. Results: After acupressure and physiotherapy sessions of two months there was a statistically significant (p<0.05) drop in the VAS and WOMAC pain scores, and very significant (p<0.01) drop in OKS scores for both treated groups. There were no significant differences between the two groups at intergroup comparison. Conclusions: We conclude that acupressure and physiotherapy are effective and adjunctive therapy with medication to relieve the symptoms of knee osteoarthritis. In present study we cannot demonstrate any superiority in between acupressure and physiotherapy.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".