MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2149497948 · doi:10.1002/acr.22350

Effects of Two Physiotherapy Booster Sessions on Outcomes With Home Exercise in People With Knee Osteoarthritis: A Randomized Controlled Trial

2014· article· en· W2149497948 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Kim L. Bennell, Mary Kyriakides, Paul W. Hodges, Rana S. Hinman

Bibliographic record

VenueArthritis Care & Research · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Health and Medical Research CouncilMcMaster University
KeywordsMedicinePhysical therapyOsteoarthritisRandomized controlled trialConfidence intervalBody mass indexVisual analogue scaleSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Enhancing exercise adherence over the longer term is an important goal in self-management of knee osteoarthritis (OA). Following an initial period of more intensive exercise supervision, this study investigated whether 2 additional physiotherapy visits improved outcomes with continued home exercise over a subsequent 24-week period. METHODS: A total of 78 people with medial knee OA (mean ± SD age 62.1 ± 6.9 years, mean ± SD body mass index 29.4 ± 4.0 kg/m(2) , and radiographic disease severity 19% mild, 49% moderate, and 32% severe) who completed a 12-week physiotherapist-supervised exercise trial were randomly allocated to 2 30-minute physiotherapy booster sessions (delivered by 8 physiotherapists in private clinics) or no booster sessions for the subsequent 24 weeks. All participants were asked to continue home exercises 4 times weekly. Primary outcomes were change in pain, using a 100-mm visual analog scale, and self-reported physical function, measured using the Western Ontario McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index. Participants and physiotherapists were unblinded to group allocation, although participants were blinded to the study hypothesis. RESULTS: A total of 74 participants (95%) completed the trial. There was no significant difference between groups for change in pain (mean difference [95% confidence interval (95% CI)] 0.7 mm [-9.4, 8.0]; P = 0.88) or physical function (-0.3 units [95% CI -4.0, 3.5]; P = 0.88). The mean ± SD percentage of home exercise sessions completed was 56% ± 34% in the booster group and 51% ± 37% in the control group (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Two booster sessions with a physiotherapist did not influence pain or physical function outcomes, or measures of home exercise adherence. These findings suggest other more effective strategies are needed to maximize longer-term adherence with the aim to achieve greater improvements in clinical outcomes from exercise in this patient population.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.308 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations49
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArthritis Care & ResearchSame topicOsteoarthritis Treatment and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207