Efeito dos protocolos de fortalecimento muscular e exercício aeróbico sobre a dor, força muscular e desempenho físico nos indivíduos com osteoartrite de joelho
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction: For the treatment of individuals with knee osteoarthritis (KOA), the American College of Rheumatology recommends conservative modalities and, among them, are the muscle strengthening (MS) and aerobic exercise (AE) protocols. However, it is still uncertain in the literature as to which of these exercises is most effective for this population. In addition, psychological factors are also important to consider for KOA and how much they influence physical performance and symptom improvement is still uncertain. Objectives: To evaluate the effect of the MS and AE protocols on pain, muscle strength and physical performance in individuals with KOA, considering the influence of age, BMI, depressive symptoms and pain catastrophization. In addition, verify whether these psychological factors are correlated with physical performance, considering the influence of age, BMI and pain. Material and methods: Ninety-eight individuals were assessed before and after the intervention protocols by the measures: Visual Numerical Scale, Pain Pressure Pressure Threshold, Beck Depression Questionnaire, Catastrophic Thought Scale, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Questionnaire (WOMAC), Isometric Force and Gait Speeds. Subjects were randomized to one of the following protocols. 1) MS protocol: It consisted of strengthening the abductor muscles of the hip, quadriceps and anterior tibialis, through 4 sets of 6 repetitions; 2) AE Protocol: It consisted of 40 minutes on an exercise bike, in which the individual should maintain the range of 50-70% of the maximum heart rate; 3) Control Protocol (CT): It consisted of education through a 60-minute booklet and lectures on OAJ characteristics and execution of part of the physiotherapeutic protocol for home performance. The protocols were applied over a period of 8 weeks, 3 times a week. Statistical analyzes were performed using the Generalized Equations test and the Multiple Linear Regression test. Results: It was found that both FM and AS produced a positive short-term effect on pain, muscle strength and physical performance, considering the influence of depressive symptoms and pain catastrophization. Furthermore, the FM protocol proved to be more effective than the AE and the CT. As for the relationship between psychological factors and physical performance, an association was observed between depressive symptoms and pain catastrophization with self-reported and objective physical performance. However, catastrophizing pain was the best predictor of poor physical performance. Conclusions: MS is the most effective protocol for improving the symptoms of individuals with KOA, considering the influence of depressive symptoms and pain catastrophization. In addition, catastrophizing pain is the psychological measure that best predicts self-reported physical performance and depressive symptoms and objective physical performance in individuals with KOA.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,009 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 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; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».