Randomized Trial Investigating Similar Benefits of Face-to-Face and Telerehabilitation Delivery in Circuit Training for Knee Osteoarthritis
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This study compared the efficacy of a circuit training program delivered through face-to-face and telerehabilitation modalities, an online videoconferencing application, for people with knee osteoarthritis.This study compared the efficacy of a circuit training program delivered through face-to-face and telerehabilitation modalities, an online videoconferencing application, for people with knee osteoarthritis. The high adherence rates and comparable outcomes suggest that telerehabilitation is a feasible, safe and acceptable alternative for patients. The findings of this study should be taken into consideration for the current practice in Saudi Arabia, and more technology-based interventions need to be prescribed to people with knee osteoarthritis. Telerehabilitation is an effective, feasible and acceptable alternative to face-to-face circuit training for knee osteoarthritis patients, offering similar benefits in terms of pain reduction, joint function, and muscle strength. Future research should focus on understanding the predictors influencing patients’ choices between rehabilitation modalities and further implementing telemedicine in knee osteoarthritis care.T This study is a randomized controlled trial where people with knee osteoarthritis were recruited from a private rehabilitation center, Physiozone rehabilitation center, in Saudi Arabia and randomised to the intervention (personalised circuit training program delivered through telerehabilitation modalities, an online videoconferencing application) or the control group (personalised circuit training program delivered face-to-face) for 12 weeks, up to 45 minutes three times per week. The main outcome measures are related to attrition, safety, and adherence. The clinical measures included pain, joint function, and muscle strength, followed by follow-up assessments at weeks 14 and 26. Pain was measured using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), and joint function was assessed using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS). Muscle strength was evaluated using isokinetic and handheld dynamometry. The participants completed a questionnaire on the acceptability of the intervention. A total of 100 participants were randomized into intervention (telerehabilitation, n = 50) and control (face-to-face, n = 50) groups. None of the participants were dropped out of the study, and no adverse events were recorded. Participants in the intervention group completed their program on an average of 3.6 ± 1.3 and in the control group on an average of 2.9 ± 0.8. Both groups demonstrated significant improvements in pain reduction, joint function, and muscle strength by weeks 14 and 26, with no significant differences between the two groups, indicating comparable efficacy to face-to-face interventions.
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.
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 | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 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 découle