MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Exercise for osteoarthritis of the knee

2008· article· en· W2122524108 on OpenAlexaff
Marlene Fransen, Sara McConnell

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsSt Joseph's Health Care
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOsteoarthritisPhysical therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Biomechanical factors, such as reduced muscle strength and joint malalignment, have an important role in the initiation and progression of knee osteoarthritis (OA). Currently, there is no known cure for OA; however, disease-related factors, such as impaired muscle function and reduced fitness, are potentially amenable to therapeutic exercise. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether land-based therapeutic exercise is beneficial for people with knee OA in terms of reduced joint pain or improved physical function. SEARCH STRATEGY: Five electronic databases were searched, up until December 2007. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomized controlled trials randomising individuals and comparing some form of land-based therapeutic exercise (as opposed to exercises conducted in the water) with a non-exercise group. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed methodological quality. All analyses were conducted on continuous outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: The 32 included studies provided data on 3616 participants for knee pain and 3719 participants for self-reported physical function. Meta-analysis revealed a beneficial treatment effect with a standardized mean difference (SMD) of 0.40 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.30 to 0.50) for pain; and SMD 0.37 (95% CI 0.25 to 0.49) for physical function. There was marked variability across the included studies in participants recruited, symptom duration, exercise interventions assessed and important aspects of study methodology. The results were sensitive to the number of direct supervision occasions provided and various aspects of study methodology. While the pooled beneficial effects of exercise programs providing less than 12 direct supervision occasions or studies utilising more rigorous methodologies remained significant and clinically relevant, between study heterogeneity remained marked and the magnitude of the treatment effect of these studies would be considered small. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is platinum level evidence that land-based therapeutic exercise has at least short term benefit in terms of reduced knee pain and improved physical function for people with knee OA. The magnitude of the treatment effect would be considered small, but comparable to estimates reported for non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Systematic reviewlow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Systematic reviewhigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.550
Threshold uncertainty score0.919

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.083
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations176
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsFrench-language works237,207