The Ottawa panel clinical practice guidelines for the management of knee osteoarthritis. Part two: strengthening exercise programs
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To identify effective strengthening exercise programs and provide rehabilitation teams and patients with updated, high-quality recommendations concerning traditional land-based exercises for knee osteoarthritis. METHODS: A systematic search and adapted selection criteria included comparative controlled trials with strengthening exercise programs for patients with knee osteoarthritis. A panel of experts reached consensus on the recommendations using a Delphi survey. A hierarchical alphabetical grading system (A, B, C+, C, D, D+ or D-) was based on statistical significance ( p < 0.5) and clinical importance (⩾15% improvement). RESULTS: The 26 high-quality studies identified demonstrated that various strengthening exercise programs with/without other types of therapeutic exercises are generally effective for improving knee osteoarthritis management within a six-month period. Strengthening exercise programs demonstrated a significant improvement for pain relief (four Grade A, ten Grade B, two Grade C+), physical function (four Grade A, eight Grade B) and quality of life (three Grade B). Strengthening in combination with other types of exercises (coordination, balance, functional) showed a significant improvement in pain relief (three Grade A, 11 Grade B, eight Grade C+), physical function (two Grade A, four Grade B, three Grade C+) and quality of life (one Grade A, one Grade C+). CONCLUSION: There are a variety of choices for strengthening exercise programs with positive recommendations for healthcare professionals and knee osteoarthritis patients. There is a need to develop combined behavioral and muscle-strengthening strategies to improve long-term maintenance of regular strengthening exercise programs.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it