MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2461498088 · doi:10.7326/m16-0453

Unloading Shoes for Self-management of Knee Osteoarthritis

2016· article· en· W2461498088 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Rana S. Hinman, Tim V. Wrigley, Penny K. Campbell, Kade L. Paterson, David J. Hunter, Jessica Kasza, Andrew Forbes, Kim L. Bennell

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Internal Medicine · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOsteoarthritisMedicineWOMACPhysical therapyRandomized controlled trialQuality of life (healthcare)Knee painPhysical medicine and rehabilitationClinical trialRating scaleKnee JointSurgeryAlternative medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Appropriate footwear is recommended for self-management of knee osteoarthritis. Shoes that reduce harmful knee loads are available, but symptomatic effects are uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of unloading shoes in alleviating knee osteoarthritis symptoms. DESIGN: Participant- and assessor-blinded comparative effectiveness randomized, controlled trial. (Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12613000851763). SETTING: Community. PARTICIPANTS: 164 persons with medial knee osteoarthritis. INTERVENTION: Walking shoes with triple-density, variable-stiffness midsoles and mild lateral-wedge insoles designed to unload the medial knee and worn daily (intervention) versus conventional walking shoes (comparator). MEASUREMENTS: Primary outcomes were pain with walking (assessed on a numerical rating scale [NRS]) and physical function (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index [WOMAC]) at 6 months. Secondary outcomes were knee pain and stiffness (WOMAC), average pain (NRS), intermittent and constant knee pain (Intermittent and Constant Osteoarthritis Pain questionnaire), quality of life (Assessment of Quality of Life instrument), physical activity (Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly), and global change in pain and function (Likert scales). RESULTS: A total of 160 participants (98%) completed primary outcome measures at 6 months. Changes in pain (mean difference, 0.0 units [95% CI, -0.9 to 0.8 unit]) and function (mean difference, 0.3 unit [CI, -3.2 to 3.7 units]) did not differ between groups at 6 months, with both groups showing clinically relevant improvements in function and the intervention group showing clinically relevant improvements in pain. There were no differences in secondary outcomes. Pain was globally improved in 54% of participants, and function was globally improved in 44% to 48%. Unloading shoes were not associated with increased probability of improvement (odds ratios, 0.99 [CI, 0.53 to 1.86] for pain and 0.85 [CI, 0.45 to 1.61] for function). LIMITATION: Effects on joint structure were not evaluated. CONCLUSION: Shoes with modified midsoles to unload the medial knee conferred no additional benefit over conventional walking shoes. Both improved pain and function by clinically relevant amounts. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Australian National Health and Medical Research Council.

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)0.004
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.286 · 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

Citations40
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Internal MedicineSame topicOsteoarthritis Treatment and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207