Contrast Hydrotherapy: Effect on Physical Functions among Patients with Knee Osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Knee osteoarthritis is a common progressive, multifactorial, long-term chronic joint disease, characterized by deterioration of joint cartilage, leading to chronic pain, stiffness, and functional disability, Contrast hydrotherapy is a simple intervention of alternating hot and cold applications for reducing pain, and improving stiffness and improving physical functions. Aim of the study: evaluate the effect of contrast hydrotherapy on physical functions among patients with knee osteoarthritis. Research design: A Quasi-experimental research design was utilized. Setting: This study was conducted at the Rheumatology Rehabilitation Department outpatient clinic. affiliated to Ain Shams University hospitals, Cairo, Egypt. Subjects: A purposive sample of 66 adult patients was selected based on inclusion criteria. Tools: Two tools were used in the study. Tool I: Patient-structured interviewing questionnaire. Tool II: Western Ontario and Mac Master Universities Arthritis Questionnaire (WOMAC). Results: The mean age of the studied patients was 47.91±11.56; 83.3% of the studied patients were females. Also, 62.2% of them were obese, and 31.8% of them complained of difficulty in movement. Moreover, there was an improvement in the difficulty of physical function among the studied patients post-implementation of contrast hydrotherapy in terms of total mean score (30.41±7.64) with a highly statistically significant difference (P < 0.01). Conclusion: There was an improvement in WOMAC score, and an improvement in physical functions after implementation of contrast hydrotherapy. Recommendations: Contrast hydrotherapy should be recommended as routine care for patients 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 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".