Efficacy of Hip Strengthening Exercises Compared With Leg Strengthening Exercises on Knee Pain, Function, and Quality of Life in Patients With Knee Osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of hip and leg strengthening exercise programs on knee pain, function, and quality of life (QOL) of patients with knee osteoarthritis (KOA). DESIGN: Single-Blinded Randomized Clinical Trial. SETTING: Patients with KOA. PARTICIPANTS: Male and female subjects were recruited from patients referred to the University of Calgary Sport Medicine Center and from newspaper advertisements. INTERVENTIONS: Thirty-seven and 35 patients with KOA were randomly assigned to either a 12-week hip or leg strengthening exercise program, respectively. Both exercise programs consisted of strengthening and flexibility exercises, which were completed 3 to 5 days a week. The first 3 weeks of exercise were supervised and the remaining 9 weeks consisted of at-home exercise. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Score (KOOS) and Western Ontario McMaster Arthritis Index (WOMAC) questionnaires, 6-minute walk test, hip and knee range of motion (ROM), and hip and leg muscle strength. RESULTS: Statistically and clinically significant improvements in the KOOS and WOMAC pain subscale scores were observed in both the hip and leg strengthening programs. There was no statistical difference in the change in scores observed between the 2 groups. Equal improvements in the KOOS and WOMAC function and QOL subscales were observed for both programs. There was no change in hip and knee ROM or hip and leg strength in either group. CONCLUSIONS: Isolated hip and leg strengthening exercise programs seem to similarly improve knee pain, function, and QOL in patients with KOA. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The results of this study show that both hip and leg strengthening exercises improve pain and QOL in patients with KOA and should be incorporated into the exercise prescription of patients with KOA.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".