MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

COMPARATIVE EFFECTS OF LOW INTENSITY LASER THERAPY VERSUS MICROWAVE THERAPY ON PAIN AND FUNCTION IN PATIENTS WITH KNEE OSTEOARTHRITIS: A RANDOMIZED CLINICAL TRIAL

2025· article· W7116775893 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Priyank Mohan, Surya Prakash Sharma, Rishan, Amresh Kumar

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Medical and Exercise Science · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldMedicine
TopicLaser Applications in Dentistry and Medicine
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWOMACOsteoarthritisRandomized controlled trialLow level laser therapyVisual analogue scaleQuality of life (healthcare)Clinical trialRating scale

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Knee osteoarthritis (OA), a degenerative joint disease characterized by pain, stiffness, and functional decline, significantly impacts quality of life, particularly in aging populations. Nonpharmacological therapies like Low-Level Laser Therapy (LLLT) and Microwave Therapy (MWT) are increasingly explored for their potential to alleviate symptoms without systemic side effects. While LLLT employs photo-biomodulation to reduce inflammation and enhance tissue repair, MWT relies on thermal mechanisms for pain. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of LLLT and MWT in reducing pain and improving functional activity in patients with knee OA grades 2 and 3, using the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC). Methods: A randomized controlled trial included 30 participants (15 per group) diagnosed with knee OA (Kellgren-Lawrence grades 2-3). Group A received LLLT (830nm, 32 J/cm²/session) alongside a standardized exercise protocol, while Group B underwent MWT (2450 MHz, 20 minutes/session) with the same exercises. Interventions were administered every alternate day for three weeks. Pain (NPRS) and function (WOMAC) were assessed pre- and post-intervention. Statistical analysis used paired and independent t-tests via SPSS. Result: LLLT demonstrated superior outcomes: NPRS scores decreased by 3.47 ± 0.74 (p < 0.001) vs. 1.27 ± 0.96 in MWT (p < 0.05). WOMAC improvements were 21.47 ± 9.04 (LLLT) vs. 10.40 ± 5.43 (MWT) (p < 0.001). These results align with LLLT’s anti-inflammatory and mitochondrial-modulating mechanisms, contrasting MWT’s transient thermal effects. Conclusion: LLLT outperforms MWT in managing pain and function in moderate knee OA, attributed to its bio-modulatory effects on inflammation and tissue repair. While MWT offers short-term relief, LLLT’s sustained benefits position it as a better non-pharmacological therapy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.326 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Medical and Exercise ScienceSame topicLaser Applications in Dentistry and MedicineFrench-language works237,207