Osteoarthritis: 119. The Effectiveness of Exercise Therapy with and without Manual Therapy for Hip Osteoarthritis: A Multicentre Randomised Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Current evidence indicates that exercise therapy (ET) has a short and medium-term benefit for hip osteoarthritis (OA), but evidence is inconclusive regarding the effect of manual therapy (MT). The primary aim of this randomised controlled trial was to determine the effectiveness of ET with and without MT on clinical outcomes for individuals with hip OA. A secondary aim was to ascertain the effect of an 8-week waiting period on outcomes. Methods: 131 men and women with hip OA recruited in four hospitals were initially randomised to one of three groups: ET (n = 45), a combination of ET and MT (n = 43) and wait-list control (n = 43). The two intervention groups underwent individualised ET or ET/MT for 8 weeks. Patients in the control group waited 8 weeks and were randomised to receive either ET or ET/MT after 9 week follow-up, and pooled with original treatment group data: ET (n = 66) and ET/ MT (n = 65). All participants were followed up at 9 and 18 weeks and the control group was reassessed at 27 weeks (18 weeks post-treatment) by the same blinded assessor. The primary outcome measure was the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC). Other outcomes included sit-to-stand, 50-foot walk test, pain severity, hip range of motion (ROM), anxiety, depression, quality of life (QOL), analgesic usage, physical activity, patient-perceived change and patient satisfaction. Intention-to-treat analysis was performed to determine within-group change and between-group differences for the three groups at baseline and 9 weeks, and the two treatment groups at baseline, 9 and 18 weeks. Results: Eight patients (6.1%) were lost to follow-up at 9 weeks and 19 (14.5%) were lost to follow-up by 18 weeks. Both ET (n = 66) and ET/MT groups (n = 65) showed significant within-group improvements in WOMAC, pain severity, sit-to-stand and HROM measures at 9 weeks, which were still evident at 18 weeks. There was no significant within-group change in anxiety, depression, QOL, analgesic usage, 50-foot walk test or physical activity. There was no significant difference between the two intervention groups for any of the outcomes. Regarding the results of the original ET, ET/MT and control group allocation, there was a significant improvement in one or both ET and ET/MT groups compared with the control group in the same outcomes, as well as patient perceived improvement at 9 weeks. There was no significant difference between the three groups in analgesic usage, WOMAC stiffness subscale, sit-to-stand and 50 foot walk tests, QOL and physical activity. There was an overall deterioration in anxiety and depression scores. Conclusions: The addition of MT to an 8 week programme of ET for hip OA resulted in similar improvements in pain, function and ROM at 9 and 18 weeks. The significant improvement which occurred in the same outcomes in the two treatment groups compared with a wait-list control of 8 weeks has implications for waiting list management Disclosure statement: The authors have declared no conflicts of interest.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.003 |
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.
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".