MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2939456548 · doi:10.4085/1062-6050-329-17

Proprioceptive Training and Outcomes of Patients With Knee Osteoarthritis: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2019· review· en· W2939456548 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Athletic Training · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInternational Olympic CommitteeNational Research Foundation of KoreaMinistry of EducationYonsei UniversityNational Research Foundation
KeywordsOsteoarthritisPhysical therapyProprioceptionRandomized controlled trialPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicineMeta-analysisContext (archaeology)Alternative medicineSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective To describe the effects of proprioceptive training on pain, stiffness, function, and functional test outcomes among patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA). Data Sources All studies completed from 1946 to 2017 were obtained from 4 databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, CINAHL, and SPORTDiscus). Study Selection Three reviewers independently identified appropriate studies and extracted data. Data Extraction Methodologic quality and level of evidence were assessed using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database scale and Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine guidelines. The standardized mean differences (SMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for pain, stiffness, function, and functional test outcomes. Data Synthesis Seven randomized controlled trials involving 558 patients with knee OA met the inclusion criteria. The selected studies had Physiotherapy Evidence Database scores of 6 to 8. All randomized controlled trials had an Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine level of evidence of 2. Meta-analysis of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain subscale (SMD = −0.56; 95% CI = −1.06, −0.07; P = .026), function subscale (SMD = −0.40; 95% CI = −0.59, −0.21; P < .001), and non-WOMAC walking speed test (SMD = −1.07; 95% CI = −2.12, −0.01; P = .048) revealed that proprioceptive training had significant treatment effects. Proprioceptive training was not associated with reductions in WOMAC stiffness subscale scores and did not improve non-WOMAC get-up-and-go scores. Conclusions Proprioceptive training effectively promoted pain relief and completion of functional daily activity among patients with knee OA and should be included in rehabilitation programs. Stiffness and other mobility measures were unchanged after proprioceptive training. Modified proprioceptive training programs are needed to target stiffness and improve additional physical function domains.

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 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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (broad)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.506
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0660.017
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
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 head0.125
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.226 · 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