MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2786617053 · doi:10.1016/j.pmrj.2018.01.003

Dose‐Response Effects of Tai Chi and Physical Therapy Exercise Interventions in Symptomatic Knee Osteoarthritis

2018· article· en· W2786617053 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Augustine Lee, William F. Harvey, Lori Lyn Price, Xingyi Han, Jeffrey B. Driban, Maura D. Iversen, Sima A. Desai, Hans E. Knopp, Chenchen Wang

Bibliographic record

VenuePM&R · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Center for Complementary and Integrative HealthNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsMedicineOsteoarthritisPhysical therapyPsychological interventionExercise therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationRandomized controlled trialAlternative medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Therapeutic exercise is a currently recommended nonpharmacological treatment for knee osteoarthritis (KOA). The optimal treatment dose (frequency or duration) has not been determined. OBJECTIVE: To examine dose-response relationships, minimal effective dose, and baseline factors associated with the timing of response from 2 exercise interventions in KOA. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of a single-blind, randomized trial comparing 12-week Tai Chi and physical therapy exercise programs (Trial Registry #NCT01258985). SETTING: , 70% female; 55% white). METHODS: We defined dose as cumulative attendance-weeks of intervention, and treatment response as ≥20% and ≥50% improvement in pain and function. Using log-rank tests, we compared time-to-response between interventions, and used Cox regression to examine baseline factors associated with timing of response, including physical and psychosocial health, physical performance, outcome expectations, self-efficacy, and biomechanical factors. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Weekly Western Ontario and McMasters Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain (0-500) and function (0-1700) scores. RESULTS: Both interventions had an approximately linear dose-response effect resulting in a 9- to 11-point reduction in WOMAC pain and a 32- to 41-point improvement in function per attendance-week. There was no significant difference in overall time-to-response for pain and function between treatment groups. Median time-to-response for ≥20% improvement in pain and function was 2 attendance-weeks and for ≥50% improvement was 4-5 attendance-weeks. On multivariable models, outcome expectations were independently associated with incident function response (hazard ratio = 1.47, 95% confidence interval 1.004-2.14). CONCLUSIONS: Both interventions have approximately linear dose-dependent effects on pain and function; their minimum effective doses range from 2-5 weeks; and patient perceived benefits of exercise influence the timing of response in KOA. These results may help clinicians to optimize patient-centered exercise treatments and better manage patient expectations. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.812
Threshold uncertainty score0.460

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations29
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePM&RSame topicOsteoarthritis Treatment and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207