Strengthening of the Hip and Core Versus Knee Muscles for the Treatment of Patellofemoral Pain: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Patellofemoral pain (PFP) is the most common injury in running and jumping athletes. Randomized controlled trials suggest that incorporating hip and core strengthening (HIP) with knee-focused rehabilitation (KNEE) improves PFP outcomes. However, no randomized controlled trials have, to our knowledge, directly compared HIP and KNEE programs. OBJECTIVE: To compare PFP pain, function, hip- and knee-muscle strength, and core endurance between KNEE and HIP protocols after 6 weeks of rehabilitation. We hypothesized greater improvements in (1) pain and function, (2) hip strength and core endurance for patients with PFP involved in the HIP protocol, and (3) knee strength for patients involved in the KNEE protocol. DESIGN: Randomized controlled clinical trial. SETTING: Four clinical research laboratories in Calgary, Alberta; Chicago, Illinois; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and Augusta, Georgia. PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS: Of 721 patients with PFP screened, 199 (27.6%) met the inclusion criteria (66 men [31.2%], 133 women [66.8%], age = 29.0 ± 7.1 years, height = 170.4 ± 9.4 cm, weight = 67.6 ± 13.5 kg). INTERVENTION(S): Patients with PFP were randomly assigned to a 6-week KNEE or HIP protocol. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Primary variables were self-reported visual analog scale and Anterior Knee Pain Scale measures, which were conducted weekly. Secondary variables were muscle strength and core endurance measured at baseline and at 6 weeks. RESULTS: Compared with baseline, both the visual analog scale and the Anterior Knee Pain Scale improved for patients with PFP in both the HIP and KNEE protocols (P < .001), but the visual analog scale scores for those in the HIP protocol were reduced 1 week earlier than in the KNEE group. Both groups increased in strength (P < .001), but those in the HIP protocol gained more in hip-abductor (P = .01) and -extensor (P = .01) strength and posterior core endurance (P = .05) compared with the KNEE group. CONCLUSIONS: Both the HIP and KNEE rehabilitation protocols produced improvements in PFP, function, and strength over 6 weeks. Although outcomes were similar, the HIP protocol resulted in earlier resolution of pain and greater overall gains in strength compared with the KNEE protocol.
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".