MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2029047062 · doi:10.1186/1471-2474-15-254

A multicentre, pragmatic, parallel group, randomised controlled trial to compare the clinical and cost-effectiveness of three physiotherapy-led exercise interventions for knee osteoarthritis in older adults: the BEEP trial protocol (ISRCTN: 93634563)

2014· article· en· W2029047062 on OpenAlexaffabout
Nadine E. Foster, Emma L. Healey, Melanie Holden, Elaine Nicholls, David G. T. Whitehurst, Clare Jinks, Edward Roddy, Elaine M. Hay

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Musculoskeletal Disorders · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsVancouver Coastal Health Research InstituteSimon Fraser UniversityVancouver Coastal Health
FundersNIHR School for Primary Care ResearchCollaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care - Greater ManchesterVersus ArthritisProgramme Grants for Applied ResearchKeele UniversityNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsMedicinePhysical therapyRandomized controlled trialOsteoarthritisSports medicinePsychological interventionRehabilitationClinical endpointClinical trialPhysical medicine and rehabilitationAlternative medicineSurgeryNursingInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Exercise is consistently recommended for older adults with knee pain related to osteoarthritis. However, the effects from exercise are typically small and short-term, likely linked to insufficient individualisation of the exercise programme and limited attention to supporting exercise adherence over time. The BEEP randomised trial aims to improve patients' short and long-term outcomes from exercise. It will test the overall effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of two physiotherapy-led exercise interventions (Individually Tailored Exercise and Targeted Exercise Adherence) to improve the individual tailoring of, and adherence to exercise, compared with usual physiotherapy care. METHODS/DESIGN: Based on the learning from a pilot study (ISRCTN 23294263), the BEEP trial is a multi-centre, pragmatic, parallel group, individually randomised controlled trial, with embedded longitudinal qualitative interviews. 500 adults in primary care, aged 45 years and over with knee pain will be randomised to 1 of 3 treatment groups delivered by fully trained physiotherapists in up to 6 NHS services. These are: Usual Physiotherapy Care (control group consisting of up to 4 treatment sessions of advice and exercise), Individually Tailored Exercise (an individualised, supervised and progressed lower-limb exercise programme) or Targeted Exercise Adherence (supporting patients to adhere to exercise and to engage in general physical activity over the longer-term). The primary outcomes are pain and function as measured by the Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis index. A comprehensive range of secondary outcomes are also included. Outcomes are measured at 3, 6 (primary outcome time-point), 9, 18 and 36 months. Data on adverse events will also be collected. Semi-structured, qualitative interviews with a subsample of 30 participants (10 from each treatment group) will be undertaken at two time-points (end of treatment and 12 to 18 months later) and analysed thematically. DISCUSSION: This trial will contribute to the evidence base for management of older adults with knee pain attributable to osteoarthritis in primary care. The findings will have important implications for healthcare commissioners, general practitioners and physiotherapy service providers and it will inform future education of healthcare practitioners. It may also serve to delay or prevent some individuals from becoming surgical candidates. TRIAL REGISTRATION ISRCTN: ISRCTN93634563.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.103

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.005
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0060.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.336 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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".

Quick stats

Citations45
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Musculoskeletal DisordersSame topicOsteoarthritis Treatment and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207