Effect of Therapeutic Exercises beyond 150 Days from the Onset of Treatment for Osteoarthritis of the Knee : A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective : We performed a systematic review to investigate improvements in body function and structure, activity, and health-related quality of life from exercise programs of >150 days' duration in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA). Methods : We collected data on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effects of exercise intervention with those of either nonintervention or psychoeducational intervention in patients with knee OA. Data were collected on pain, stiffness, muscle strength, range of motion, flexibility, maximal oxygen uptake, proprioception, time to climb a flight of stairs, disability as assessed by the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC), walking distance (e.g., 6-min walking-distance test), walking time (e.g., time to walk arbitrary distances), walking velocity, and health-related quality of life assessed using the SF-36® Health Survey (SF-36). The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system was used to determine the quality of the evidence. Results: Forty-one RCTs were identified. Outcomes that were significantly affected by exercise programs of >150 days were knee flexion muscle strength at a functional level, time to climb a flight of stairs and walking distance at activity level, and SF-36 General Health, Physical Functioning, Role-Physical, and Bodily Pain scales. The quality of evidence for these outcomes was moderate to high. Conclusion : In patients with knee OA, improvements in body function, activity, and health-related quality of life can be maintained with exercise programs of >150 days' duration, and these findings are supported by a moderate to high level of evidence.
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 | 0.007 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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".