Effect of Systematic Exercise Rehabilitation on Patients With Knee Osteoarthritis: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives We aimed to compare the outcomes of exercise rehabilitation and conventional treatment in patients with knee osteoarthritis. Methods This trial included a total of 166 patients diagnosed with knee osteoarthritis; they were randomly divided into groups. The experimental group underwent systematic exercise rehabilitation, while the control group received naproxen ( n = 28), diclofenac ( n = 27), or celecoxib ( n = 19). Improvement in symptoms, knee function, and quality of life were compared. SPSS Statistics 24.0 was used for the data analysis. Results The mean age of patients was 56.0 ± 10.5 years, and the average follow-up time was 12 ± 2.3 weeks. No statistically significant differences were seen in age, body mass index, and sex ( P > 0.05) between the groups. The average Western Ontario and MacMaster Universities (WOMAC) scores after treatment were 84.4 ± 15.2, 108.3 ± 3.9, 107.4 ± 5.4, and 107 ± 6.0 in the exercise rehabilitation, diclofenac, naproxen, and celecoxib groups, respectively. The mean Lysholm scores were 60.3 ± 14.9, 41.0 ± 0.1, 43.5 ± 5.3, and 41.7 ± 3.6 in the exercise rehabilitation, diclofenac, naproxen, and celecoxib groups, respectively. The mean SF-36 (Short Form-36 Survey) scores were 105.4 ± 21.5, 82.5 ± 3.7, 84.2 ± 3.5, and 83.7 ± 5.0 in the exercise rehabilitation, naproxen, celecoxib, and diclofenac groups, respectively. The average ranges of knee motion were 125.0 ± 6.2°, 116.4 ± 1.4°, 114.7 ± 1.1°, and 115.7 ± 0.8° after exercise rehabilitation, diclofenac, naproxen, and celecoxib treatments, respectively. These data presented statistical differences between the groups. Conclusion Exercise better improved symptoms and quality of life in patients with knee osteoarthritis over a 12-week follow-up period than that achieved with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and COX-2 inhibitors.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".