MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Intensity of exercise for the treatment of osteoarthritis

2013· review· en· W3022368928 on OpenAlexaff
Lucie Brosseau, Lynn MacLeay, Vivian Welch, Peter Tugwell, George A. Wells

Post-publication record

OpenAlex flags this work as retracted, but it carries no matching Retraction Watch record in this frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Population and Public HealthUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePhysical therapyBlindingCINAHLOsteoarthritisMEDLINEAerobic exerciseRandomized controlled trialRehabilitationPhysical medicine and rehabilitationClinical trialQuality of life (healthcare)Meta-analysisPsychological interventionInternal medicineAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Therapeutic exercise is used as one modality to treat people with osteoarthritis (OA). OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of therapeutic exercise of differing intensities on objective and subjective measures of disease activity in people with OA. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Pedro, Current Contents, Sports Discus and CINAHL up to and including December 2002. The Cochrane Field of Rehabilitation and Related Therapies and the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Review Group were also contacted for a search of their specialized registers. Handsearching was conducted on all retrieved articles for additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Comparative controlled studies, such as randomized controlled trials, controlled clinical trials, cohort studies or case/control studies, of therapeutic exercises compared to control or active interventions in people with OA were eligible. No language restrictions were applied. Abstracts were also accepted. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two independent reviewers identified potential articles from the literature search. These reviewers extracted data using pre-defined extraction forms. Consensus was reached on all data extraction. The two reviewers used a five point scale to assess the quality of the selected articles. Randomization, double-blinding and description of withdrawals were assessed. MAIN RESULTS: One study involving 39 participants met the inclusion criteria. The review indicates that there were no significant differences between high intensity and low intensity aerobic exercise on participants with OA of the knee for functional status, gait, pain and aerobic capacity (Mangione 1999). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Both high intensity and low intensity aerobic exercise appear to be equally effective in improving a patient`s functional status, gait, pain and aerobic capacity for people with OA of the knee. Further research involving a greater number of subjects, and a larger number of studies involving a control group is needed to further substantiate these results.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.122
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations12
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsSame topicOsteoarthritis Treatment and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207