Ottawa panel evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for patient education programmes in the management of osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The purpose of this study was to develop guidelines and recommendations on patient education programmes of any type, targeted specially to individuals with OA and which were designed to improve the clinical effectiveness of managing OA. Methods: The Ottawa Methods Group contacted specialized organizations that focus on management for individuals diagnosed with OA to nominate nine experienced clinicians specializing in various fields –rheumatology, physiatry, medicine, occupational therapy, physical therapy – and a patient with OA. The EBCPGs in this report were created based on the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation (AGREE) criteria. The Ottawa Panel graded the recommendations according to levels (I for randomized controlled trials [RCTs], II for non-randomized studies) and strength of evidence (A, B, C, C+, D, D+, or D–). Results: Using a systematic approach to our literature search, a total of over 1000 articles was found on the efficacy of patient education for OA, and 57 articles were recognized as potentially relevant. Based on the inclusion and exclusion selection criteria, 20 studies were ultimately included. Results from the Jadad scale illustrated that seven of the 20 studies included were considered of high methodological quality (≥ 3). The remaining studies received low scores, therefore they were categorized as poor methodological quality trials. Conclusion: This review of the studies to date seems to indicate the potential of patient education for OA to positively affect pain, at least in the short-term, and exercise compliance in the longer term. While the programmes reviewed varied widely in the focus and approach of education, a number of promising ‘effective ingredients’ seem to be suggested by this review. The Ottawa Panel recommendations are in concordances with other clinical practice guidelines related to the efficacy of patient education for the management of OA, especially to improve pain, physical activity level, self-efficacy and quality of life.
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 | 0.083 | 0.151 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.019 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.014 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.005 |
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".