The Ottawa panel clinical practice guidelines for the management of knee osteoarthritis. Part two: strengthening exercise programs
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.
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 | 0.039 | 0.070 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.008 |
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".