Neuromuscular Versus Quadriceps Strengthening Exercise in Patients With Medial Knee Osteoarthritis and Varus Malalignment: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of neuromuscular exercise (NEXA) and quadriceps strengthening (QS) on the knee adduction moment (an indicator of mediolateral distribution of knee load), pain, and physical function in patients with medial knee joint osteoarthritis (OA) and varus malalignment. METHODS: One hundred patients with medial knee pain, mostly moderate-to-severe radiographic medial knee OA, and varus malalignment were randomly allocated to one of two 12-week exercise programs. Each program involved 14 individually supervised exercise sessions with a physiotherapist plus a home exercise component. Primary outcomes were peak external knee adduction moment (3-dimensional gait analysis), pain (visual analog scale), and self-reported physical function (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index). RESULTS: Eighty-two patients (38 [76%] of 50 in the NEXA group and 44 [88%] of 50 in the QS group) completed the trial. There was no significant between-group difference in the change in the peak knee adduction moment (mean difference 0.13 Nm/[body weight × height]% [95% confidence interval (95% CI) -0.08, 0.33]), pain (mean difference 2.4 mm [95% CI -6.0, 10.8]), or physical function (mean difference -0.8 units [95% CI -4.0, 2.4]). Neither group showed a change in knee moments following exercise, whereas both groups showed similar significant reductions in pain and improvement in physical function. CONCLUSION: Although comparable improvements in clinical outcomes were observed with both neuromuscular and quadriceps strengthening exercise in patients with moderate varus malalignment and mostly moderate-to-severe medial knee OA, these forms of exercise did not affect the knee adduction moment, a key predictor of structural disease progression.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".