Background. Knee osteoarthritis (OA) presented with knee pain and limitation of mobility is common, and it may become a chronic problem resulting in major loss of function, with related impaired activity of daily living. Current traditional therapy for knee OA includes pharmacological treatment and physiotherapy, but the efficacies are limited. An alternative noninvasive treatment low-level laser therapy (LLLT) applied to acupoints is still contradictory and the efficacy needs to be assessed. Methods and Materials. We conduct the randomized double-blind control study to investigate the efficacy of a dual-frequency LLLT (combines red light (780 nm) and near-infrared light (830 nm)) in patients suffering knee OA. Participates were randomly assigned into active laser therapy (ALT) and placebo laser therapy (PLT) groups. Subjects in the ALT group were separately treated by laser apparatus at the three acupoints (SP9, SP10, and EX-LE2) on their knee joints under continuous radiation for 15 min at the maximum intensity, three times per week for four weeks. The PLT group used laser apparatus of the same model according to similar procedures without laser light emission. Outcome Measurements including visual analog scale (VAS), pain pressure threshold (PPT), and Lequesne index were used. Results. A total of 30 subjects with two-sided knee OA in both groups completed the experiment. Statistically significant decreases were observed in the Lequesne index (5.27 ± 3.26 vs. 10.83 ± 3.83), conscious VAS 4 weeks after treatment (moving: 2.87 ± 1.13 vs. 5.67 ± 1.72; resting: 0.33 ± 0.62 vs. 2.67 ± 1.29), and the increase was noted in PPT (21.23 ± 1.82 kg vs. 13.02 ± 1.46 kg) in the ALT group compared with the PLT group. Conclusion. It appears that the knee OA pain and disability can be decreased after a dual-frequency LLLT applied to acupoints (SP9, SP10, and EX-LE2). The clinical efficacy of LLLT is highly related to the therapeutic settings of the laser apparatus; hence, more clinical trials with diffident parameter settings are needed to be further clarified.
Background: Understanding balance ability and assessing the risk of possible falls are very important for elderly rehabilitation. The Mini-Balanced Evaluation System Test (Mini-BESTest) is an important survey for older adults to evaluate subject balance, but it is not easy to complete due to various limitations of physical activities, including occasional fear of injury. A center of pressure (CoP) signal can be extracted from a force pressure plate with a short recording time, and it is relatively achievable to ask subjects to stand on a force pressure plate in a clinical environment. The goal of this study is to estimate the cutoff score of Mini-BESTest scores from CoP data. Methods: CoP signals from a human balance evaluation database with data from 75 people were used. Time domain, frequency domain, and nonlinear domain parameters of 60 s CoP signals were extracted to classify different cutoff point scores for both linear regression and a decision tree algorithm. Classification performances were evaluated by accuracy and area under a receiver operating characteristic curve. Results: The correlation coefficient between real and estimated Mini-BESTest scores by linear regression is 0.16. Instead of linear regression, binary classification accuracy above or below a cutoff point score was developed to examine the CoP classification performance for Mini-BESTest scores. The decision tree algorithm is superior to regression analysis among scores from 16 to 20. The highest area under the curve is 0.76 at a cutoff point score of 21 for the CoP measurement condition of eyes opened on the foam, and the corresponding classification accuracy is 76.15%. Conclusions: CoP measurement is a potential tool to estimate corresponding balance and fall survey scores for elderly rehabilitation and is useful for clinical users.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.