Ottawa Panel evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for therapeutic exercise in the management of hip osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The primary objective is to identify effective land-based therapeutic exercise interventions and provide evidence-based recommendations for managing hip osteoarthritis. A secondary objective is to develop an Ottawa Panel evidence-based clinical practice guideline for hip osteoarthritis. METHODS: The search strategy and modified selection criteria from a Cochrane review were used. Studies included hip osteoarthritis patients in comparative controlled trials with therapeutic exercise interventions. An Expert Panel arrived at a Delphi survey consensus to endorse the recommendations. The Ottawa Panel hierarchical alphabetical grading system (A, B, C+, C, D, D+, or D-) considered the study design (level I: randomized controlled trial and level II: controlled clinical trial), statistical significance (p < 0.5), and clinical importance (⩾15% improvement). RESULTS: Four high-quality studies were included, which demonstrated that variations of strength training, stretching, and flexibility exercises are generally effective for improving the management of hip osteoarthritis. Strength training exercises displayed the greatest improvements for pain (Grade A), disability (Grades A and C+), physical function (Grade A), stiffness (Grade A), and range of motion (Grade A) within a short time period (8-24 weeks). Stretching also greatly improved physical function (Grade A), and flexibility exercises improved pain (Grade A), range of motion (Grade A), physical function (Grade A), and stiffness (Grade C+). CONCLUSION: The Ottawa Panel recommends land-based therapeutic exercise, notably strength training, for management of hip osteoarthritis in reducing pain, stiffness and self-reported disability, and improving physical function and range of motion.
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 | 0.063 | 0.112 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.019 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.015 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.008 |
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".