Hydrotherapy outcome measures for people with arthritis: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Exercise has been shown to be effective in decreasing pain, improving function and performance of activities of daily living in people with arthritis. While hydrotherapy is often suggested as an exercise intervention, there is little evidence that it is more effective than other forms of exercise. Scoping the literature identified that a large variety of outcome measures were used. This study aimed to identify the patient reported outcome measures used for assessing the effectiveness of hydrotherapy for people with arthritis. A systematic literature review was conducted following a search of the major health databases. Upon meeting the inclusion criteria each study was quality rated using a modified scoring tool. In the 24 studies identified 35 patient reported outcome measures were used: most common were the visual analogue pain scale and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index. Twenty-five patient reported outcome measures were used only once. Six of the patient reported outcome measures were arthritis-specific and eight generic measures had been validated for an arthritic population. Importantly, no patient reported outcome measure had been evaluated specifically for hydrotherapy interventions. The selection of outcome measures for hydrotherapy research appears inconsistent. This may account for the lack of high quality evidence for this intervention. Further research is warranted to develop a valid, reliable and responsive outcome measure specifically for people with arthritis undertaking hydrotherapy.
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 | 0.007 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".