Group Versus Individual Physical Therapy for Veterans With Knee Osteoarthritis: Randomized Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Efficient approaches are needed for delivering nonpharmacological interventions for management of knee osteoarthritis (OA). OBJECTIVE: This trial compared group-based versus individual physical therapy interventions for management of knee OA. DESIGN AND METHODS: Three hundred twenty patients with knee OA at the VA Medical Center in Durham, North Carolina, (mean age=60 years, 88% male, 58% nonwhite) were randomly assigned to receive either the group intervention (group physical therapy; six 1-hour sessions, typically 8 participants per group) or the individual intervention (individual physical therapy; two 1-hour sessions). Both programs included instruction in home exercise, joint protection techniques, and individual physical therapist evaluation. The primary outcome measure was the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC; range=0-96, higher scores indicate worse symptoms), measured at baseline, 12 weeks, and 24 weeks. The secondary outcome measure was the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB; range=0-12, higher scores indicate better performance), measured at baseline and 12 weeks. Linear mixed models assessed the difference in WOMAC scores between arms. RESULTS: At 12 weeks, WOMAC scores were 2.7 points lower in the group physical therapy arm compared with the individual physical therapy arm (95% confidence interval [CI]=-5.9, 0.5; P=.10), indicating no between-group difference. At 24 weeks, WOMAC scores were 1.3 points lower in the group physical therapy arm compared with the individual physical therapy arm (95% CI=-4.6, 2.0; P=.44), indicating no significant between-group difference. At 12 weeks, SPPB scores were 0.1 points lower in the group physical therapy arm compared with the individual physical therapy arm (95% CI=-0.5, 0.2; P=.53), indicating no difference between groups. LIMITATIONS: This study was conducted in one VA medical center. Outcome assessors were blinded, but participants and physical therapists were not blinded. CONCLUSIONS: Group physical therapy was not more effective than individual physical therapy for primary and secondary study outcomes. Either group physical therapy or individual physical therapy may be a reasonable delivery model for health care systems to consider.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.002 |
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".