Efficacy of 2 Non-Weight-Bearing Interventions, Proprioception Training Versus Strength Training, for Patients With Knee Osteoarthritis: A Randomized Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Randomized clinical trial. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the clinical and functional efficacy of 2 different non-weight-bearing exercise regimens, proprioceptive training (PrT) versus strength training (ST), for patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA). BACKGROUND: Both strength and proprioceptive training are important interventions for individuals with knee OA. The benefits of weight-bearing exercises are generally recognized in the clinical setting. However, exercising in a standing or weight-bearing position may aggravate symptoms in patients with knee OA. METHODS AND MEASURES: One hundred eight patients were randomly assigned to the PrT, ST, or no exercise (control) group for an 8-week intervention. Both the PrT and ST interventions consisted of non-weight-bearing exercises. Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index-pain (WOMAC-pain) and -function scores, walking time on 3 different terrains, knee strength, and absolute knee reposition error were assessed before and after intervention. Data were analyzed using mixed-model ANOVAs. RESULTS: Both PrT and ST significantly improved WOMAC-pain and -function score after intervention (P<.008). The improvement secondary to ST in the WOMAC-function scores (17.2 points) and for knee extension strength (10.3-14.9 Nm) was greater than the minimally clinically important difference for these measurements. The PrT group demonstrated greater improvement in walking time on a spongy surface and knee reposition error than the other 2 groups. No improvements were apparent in the control group. CONCLUSION: Both types of non-weight-bearing exercises (PrT and ST) significantly improved outcomes in this study. PrT led to greater improvements in proprioceptive function, while ST resulted in a greater increase in knee extensor muscle strength.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".