MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2113165617 · doi:10.1136/bmj.b3170

Effects of dietary intervention and quadriceps strengthening exercises on pain and function in overweight people with knee pain: randomised controlled trial

2009· article· en· W2113165617 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
C Jenkinson, Michael Doherty, Anthony Avery, Anna Read, Moira A. Taylor, Tracey Sach, P Silcocks, Kenneth Muir

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersVersus ArthritisUniversity of Nottingham
KeywordsMedicinePhysical therapyOverweightWOMACRandomized controlled trialOsteoarthritisKnee painBody mass indexPsychological interventionInternal medicineAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether dietary intervention or knee strengthening exercise, or both, can reduce knee pain and improve knee function in overweight and obese adults in the community. DESIGN: Pragmatic factorial randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Five general practices in Nottingham. PARTICIPANTS: 389 men and women aged 45 and over with a body mass index (BMI) of > or = 28.0 and self reported knee pain. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomised to dietary intervention plus quadriceps strengthening exercises; dietary intervention alone; quadriceps strengthening exercises alone; advice leaflet only (control group). Dietary intervention consisted of individualised healthy eating advice that would reduce normal intake by 2.5 MJ (600 kcal) a day. Interventions were delivered at home visits over a two year period. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was severity of knee pain scored with the Western Ontario McMaster (WOMAC) osteoarthritis index at 6, 12, and 24 months. Secondary outcomes (all at 24 months) included WOMAC knee physical function and stiffness scores and selected domains on the SF-36 and the hospital anxiety and depression index. RESULTS: 289 (74%) participants completed the trial. There was a significant reduction in knee pain in the knee exercise groups compared with those in the non-exercise groups at 24 months (percentage risk difference 11.61, 95% confidence interval 1.81% to 21.41%). The absolute effect size (0.25) was moderate. The number needed to treat to benefit from a > or = 30% improvement in knee pain at 24 months was 9 (5 to 55). In those randomised to knee exercise improvement in function was evident at 24 months (mean difference -3.64, -6.01 to -1.27). The mean difference in weight loss at 24 months in the dietary intervention group compared with no dietary intervention was 2.95 kg (1.44 to 4.46); for exercise versus no exercise the difference was 0.43 kg (-0.82 to 1.68). This difference in weight loss was not associated with improvement in knee pain or function but was associated with a reduction in depression (absolute effect size 0.19). CONCLUSIONS: A home based, self managed programme of simple knee strengthening exercises over a two year period can significantly reduce knee pain and improve knee function in overweight and obese people with knee pain. A moderate sustained weight loss is achievable with dietary intervention and is associated with reduced depression but is without apparent influence on pain or function. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN93206785.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.296
Threshold uncertainty score0.359

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

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

Citations156
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJSame topicOsteoarthritis Treatment and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207