MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2996323834 · doi:10.1002/msc.1425

Do comorbidities predict pain and function in knee osteoarthritis following an exercise intervention, and do they moderate the effect of exercise? Analyses of data from three randomized controlled trials

2019· article· en· W2996323834 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Amardeep Legha, Danielle Burke, Nadine E. Foster, Daniëlle van der Windt, Jonathan G. Quicke, Emma L. Healey, J. Runhaar, Melanie Holden

Bibliographic record

VenueMusculoskeletal Care · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNIHR School for Primary Care ResearchNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsMedicinePhysical therapyOsteoarthritisAnxietyRandomized controlled trialOverweightKnee painDepression (economics)Body mass indexUnderweightPhysical medicine and rehabilitationInternal medicinePsychiatryAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Although exercise is a core treatment for people with knee osteoarthritis (OA), it is currently unknown whether those with additional comorbidities respond differently to exercise than those without. We explored whether comorbidities predict pain and function following an exercise intervention in people with knee OA, and whether they moderate response to: exercise versus no exercise; and enhanced exercise versus usual exercise-based care. METHODS: We undertook analyses of existing data from three randomized controlled trials (RCTs): TOPIK (n = 217), APEX (n = 352) and Benefits of Effective Exercise for knee Pain (BEEP) (n = 514). All three RCTs included: adults with knee pain attributable to OA; physiotherapy-led exercise; data on six comorbidities (overweight/obesity, pain elsewhere, anxiety/depression, cardiac problems, diabetes mellitus and respiratory conditions); the outcomes of interest (six-month Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index knee pain and function). Adjusted mixed models were fitted where data was available; otherwise linear regression models were used. RESULTS: Obesity compared with underweight/normal body mass index was significantly associated with knee pain following exercise, as was the presence compared with absence of anxiety/depression. The presence of cardiac problems was significantly associated with the effect of enhanced versus usual exercise-based care for knee function, indicating that enhanced exercise may be less effective for improving knee function in people with cardiac problems. Associations for all other potential prognostic factors and moderators were weak and not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Obesity and anxiety/depression predicted pain and function outcomes in people offered an exercise intervention, but only the presence of cardiac problems might moderate the effect of exercise for knee OA. Further confirmatory investigations are required.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.102
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.175
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.102
Threshold uncertainty score0.542

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1020.175
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.044
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.290 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
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

Citations30
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMusculoskeletal CareSame topicOsteoarthritis Treatment and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207