Running and Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Osteoarthritis (OA) is a chronic condition characterized by pain, impaired function, and reduced quality of life. A number of risk factors for knee OA have been identified, such as obesity, occupation, and injury. The association between knee OA and physical activity or particular sports such as running is less clear. Previous reviews, and the evidence that informs them, present contradictory or inconclusive findings. Purpose: This systematic review aimed to determine the association between running and the development of knee OA. Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: Four electronic databases were searched, along with citations in eligible articles and reviews and the contents of recent journal issues. Two reviewers independently screened the titles and abstracts using prespecified eligibility criteria. Full-text articles were also independently assessed for eligibility. Eligible studies were those in which running or running-related sports (eg, triathlon or orienteering) were assessed as a risk factor for the onset or progression of knee OA in adults. Relevant outcomes included (1) diagnosis of knee OA, (2) radiographic markers of knee OA, (3) knee joint surgery for OA, (4) knee pain, and (5) knee-associated disability. Risk of bias was judged by use of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed with case-control studies investigating arthroplasty. Results: After de-duplication, the search returned 1322 records. Of these, 153 full-text articles were assessed; 25 were eligible, describing 15 studies: 11 cohort (6 retrospective) and 4 case-control studies. Findings of studies with a diagnostic OA outcome were mixed. Some radiographic differences were observed in runners, but only at baseline within some subgroups. Meta-analysis suggested a protective effect of running against surgery due to OA: pooled odds ratio 0.46 (95% CI, 0.30-0.71). The I 2 was 0% (95% CI, 0%-73%). Evidence relating to symptomatic outcomes was sparse and inconclusive. Conclusion: With this evidence, it is not possible to determine the role of running in knee OA. Moderate- to low-quality evidence suggests no association with OA diagnosis, a positive association with OA diagnosis, and a negative association with knee OA surgery. Conflicting results may reflect methodological heterogeneity. More evidence from well-designed, prospective studies is needed to clarify the contradictions.
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 | 0.015 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.033 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".