Effectiveness of a cognitive–behavioural group intervention for knee osteoarthritis pain: a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of a six week cognitive-behavioural group intervention in patients with knee osteoarthritis pain. DESIGN: Single-blinded randomized controlled trial. STUDY SETTING: Primary care providers in a medium-sized city in Finland. PATIENTS: A total of 111 participants aged from 35 to 75 with clinical symptoms and radiographic grading (Kellgren-Lawrence 2-4) of knee osteoarthritis were included. INTERVENTIONS: In the intervention group, 55 participants attended a cognitive-behavioural training programme for pain management with six weekly group sessions supervised by a psychologist and a physiotherapist. Concurrently, they and the 56 participants of the control group continued in ordinary GP care that was not altered by the study. MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome on three-month and 12-month follow-up was the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) Osteoarthritis index pain subscale. Secondary outcome measures included self-reports of pain and physical function, health-related quality of life, and a comprehensive set of psychological questionnaires. RESULTS: Mixed model results showed no significant differences between the intervention and control group for any measures of pain or function. A significant difference between the groups was found in the Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (Pr = 0.022) in favour of the control group, and in the RAND-36 emotional well-being subscale in favour of the intervention group (Pr = 0.038). Conventional group comparisons of mean follow-up values showed no significant differences in any of the outcome variables. CONCLUSION: This trial could not confirm the hypothesized advantage of a cognitive-behavioural training programme over ordinary GP care in knee osteoarthritis pain patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN64794760.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".