Ottawa Panel Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines for Therapeutic Exercises and Manual Therapy in the Management of Osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Osteoarthritis (OA) affects a large and growing proportion of the population. The purpose of this project was to create guidelines for the use of therapeutic exercises and manual therapy in the management of adult patients (>18 years of age) with a diagnosis of OA. All stages of the disease were included in the analysis, and studies of patients who had recent surgery or other rheumatologic, musculoskeletal, or spinal problems or of subjects without known pathology or impairments were excluded. METHODS: The Ottawa Methods Group used Cochrane Collaboration methods to find and synthesize evidence from comparative controlled trials and then asked stakeholder groups to nominate representatives to serve on a panel of experts. The Ottawa Panel agreed on criteria for grading the strength of the recommendations and their supporting evidence. Of the 609 potential articles on therapeutic exercises for OA that were identified, 113 were considered potentially relevant, and 26 randomized controlled trials and controlled clinical trials were ultimately used. RESULTS: Sixteen positive recommendations of clinical benefit were developed for therapeutic exercises, especially strengthening exercises and general physical activity, particularly for the management of pain and improvement of functional status. Manual therapy combined with exercises also is recommended in the management of patients with OA. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: The Ottawa Panel recommends the use of therapeutic exercises alone, or combined with manual therapy, for managing patients with OA. There were a total of 16 positive recommendations: 13 grade A and 3 grade C+. The Ottawa Panel recommends the use of therapeutic exercises because of the strong evidence (grades A, B, and C+) in the literature.
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 | 0.055 | 0.152 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.019 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.014 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.007 |
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".