Efficacy of continuous and pulsed therapeutic ultrasound combined with exercises for knee osteoarthritis: a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: To compare the effects of continuous and pulsed therapeutic ultrasound combined with strengthening exercises. Design: This is a double-blind randomized controlled trial. Setting: Pontifical Catholic University. Subjects: One hundred participants with Grade 2-4 knee osteoarthritis and both genders were involved. Intervention: Participants were randomized into five groups: Group I (n = 20; in the first month, continuous ultrasound was applied), Group II (n = 20; in the first month, pulsed ultrasound was applied), Group III (n = 20; in the first and second months, continuous ultrasound was applied), Group IV (n = 20; in the first and second months, pulsed ultrasound was applied) and Group V (n = 20; patients received only exercise sessions for eight weeks). All patients in the groups that received ultrasound application performed exercises in the second month of treatment. The sessions occurred three times a week. Main measures: Pain was assessed using the visual analogical scale, functionality was assessed using the Lequesne questionnaire, range of motion was assessed using a universal goniometer, muscular strength was assessed using a dynamometer, mobility was assessed using the Timed Up and Go test and 8-meter walk test and the activity level was assessed using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) questionnaire. Results: Statistically significant differences (P < 0.05) were presented by Group III in the variables pain during activities of daily living (ADLs) 5.89 (2.18), mobility assessed by 8-meter test 2.68 (2.56), in pain 10.65 (4.40), function 25.50 (10.87) and total 38.65 (15.29) of WOMAC and functionality 9.10 (5.15). Conclusion: Prolonged applications of continuous ultrasound combined with exercises are effective in providing pain, mobility, functionality and activity in subjects with knee osteoarthritis.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".