Supervised Exercise versus Usual Care for Patellofemoral Pain Syndrome
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of supervised exercise therapy with usual care on self-reported recovery, pain, and function in persons with patellofemoral pain syndrome. DESIGN: Randomized, controlled, unblinded, multicenter trial of 3 month's duration. Sample size was calculated with 80% power to show a minimum clinically important difference of 22% in recovery after 1 year, at P <or= 0.05. Patients were stratified for type of physician and age (14-17y or >or=18y). SETTING: Sport and general medicine practices in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: Inclusion criteria were: age, 14 to 40 years; presence of symptoms for between 2 months and 2 years; >or=3 of: pain when ascending or descending stairs, squatting, running, cycling, or sitting with flexed knees; grinding of the patella; and a positive clinical patellar test. Exclusion criteria were knee osteoarthritis, patellar tendinopathy, or other pathological conditions of the knee, previous knee injuries or surgery or treatment with supervised exercise. Patients were recruited by general practitioners or sport physicians (n randomized = 131; mean age, 24y; 70% 18y or older; 64% women; bilateral knee symptoms, 60%; participation in sport, 76%). INTERVENTION: The standardized 25-minute exercise protocol was tailored to individual achievement and supervised by a physical therapist. It comprised warm-up, followed by static and dynamic exercises for the quadriceps, adductor, and gluteal muscles, and included balance and thigh-muscle flexibility components. The load was increased progressively by increasing repetitions or intensity of the exercises. Patients attended 9 sessions, and were asked to practice the exercises daily for 3 months. The intervention and control patients received a pamphlet from their physicians about patellofemoral pain syndrome, advice to refrain from sports activities that provoked pain, and instructions for daily isometric quadriceps contractions. Analgesics were recommended for severe pain. Additional interventions, other than referrals to a physical therapist, were permitted. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patients reported the primary outcomes at 3 and 12 months on questionnaires. End points included perceived recovery since baseline (7-point scale from "completely recovered" to "worse than ever"), functional disability measured on the Kujala Patellofemoral Scale (0 = complete disability to 100 = fully functional) and pain severity at rest and on activity (0 = no pain to 10 = unbearable pain). Recovery was defined as "fully recovered" or "strongly recovered". Approximately 90% of patients were followed for 12 months. MAIN RESULTS: After 3 months, in intention-to-treat analysis, the groups did not differ in proportions recovered; however, when the category "slightly recovered" was included, a greater proportion of the exercise group had improved (81% vs 53%; adjusted odds ratio, 4.07; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.86 to 8.90). After 12 months, recovery did not differ for the intervention and control groups. Pain scores decreased progressively for both groups, but more for the exercise group than the control group (adjusted difference [AD] at 3 mo for pain at rest, -1.07; 95% CI, -1.92 to -0.22 and at 12 mo, -1.29; 95% CI, -2.16 to -0.42; and at 3 mo for pain on activity, -1.00; 95% CI, -1.91 to -0.08 and at 12 mo, -1.19; 95% CI, -2.22 to -0.16). Function scores also improved for both groups. At 3 months the increase in function score was greater for the exercise group (AD, 4.92; 95% CI, 0.14 to 9.72) but by 12 months the difference was no longer significant. CONCLUSIONS: Supervised exercise therapy improved patients' pain at rest and during activity, and self-reported function improved faster than with no supervised intervention. The patients' perception of recovery from patellofemoral pain syndrome was not greater among the supervised exercise group.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,006 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».