A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial for Aerobic and Strengthening Exercises on Physical Function and Pain for Hip Osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hip osteoarthritis (OA) limits lower extremity physical function. Exercise therapy may improve physical function and reduce pain in patients with hip OA. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the feasibility of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to measure the effect of a structured hip-specific resistance and aerobic exercise program on physical function and self-reported pain in adults with hip OA. DESIGN: Pilot RCT. SETTING: Academic medical center. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty one adults with radiographic hip OA. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomly allocated in a 2:1 ratio to a 3-month structured exercise intervention (n = 21) or a 3-month waitlist control (n = 10). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The 6-minute walk test was the primary outcome measure. Self-reported physical function was assessed with the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) physical function subscale and pain visual analog scale (VAS). Measures of feasibility were assessed as secondary outcomes. RESULTS: From baseline to 3 months, the median change from baseline in distance covered during the 6-minute walk test in the intervention group (49 m) was double that of the control group (22 m), but the difference was not statistically significant (P = .13). Likewise, the WOMAC physical function subscale score median changes in the intervention group (5 points) were double that of the controls (2 points), although the difference was not statistically significant (P = .06). Median change in pain scores was slightly reduced in each group but not significantly different between groups (P = .53). CONCLUSION: Although no statistically significant between-group differences were found in this pilot RCT, improvements were seen in measures of physical function compared to controls. A larger RCT of this structured exercise program may be warranted.
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 | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.001 |
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".