<b>Effects of Isotonic Strength Training with and Without Electrical Muscle Stimulation in Patients with Knee Osteoarthritis</b>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Knee osteoarthritis is a common degenerative joint disorder associated with pain, quadriceps weakness, and functional limitation, and exercise-based rehabilitation remains a principal component of conservative management. Electrical muscle stimulation is frequently used as an adjunct to improve muscle activation, but its short-term additive value when combined with isotonic strengthening remains uncertain. Objective: To compare the short-term effectiveness of isotonic quadriceps strength training with and without electrical muscle stimulation in patients with knee osteoarthritis. Methods: This experimental pretest-posttest randomized clinical study was conducted in a physiotherapy outpatient department and included 35 patients aged 40 to 65 years with unilateral knee osteoarthritis. Group A (n=18) received isotonic quadriceps strengthening alone, while Group B (n=17) received electrical muscle stimulation followed by the same strengthening protocol. Treatment was delivered three times per week on alternate days for one week. Pain was assessed using the Visual Analogue Scale, and functional status was evaluated using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index. Independent and paired t-tests were applied using SPSS version 20. Results: Both groups improved after intervention, but not statistically significant between-group difference was found for WOMAC (p=0.887) or VAS (p=0.109). Conclusion: Isotonic quadriceps strengthening with and without electrical muscle stimulation demonstrated comparable short-term effectiveness in reducing pain and improving function in patients with knee osteoarthritis, and the addition of electrical muscle stimulation did not show superior benefit over exercise alone during the study period.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".