MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The effect of progressive resistance exercise program on female knee osteoarthritis

2018· article· en· W3029189002 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Guangxiao Ni, Xiaoyong Han, Hongbin Zhou, Zhifei Luo, Wei Yue

Bibliographic record

VenueChin J Geriatr Orthop Rehabil(Electronic Edition) · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePhysical therapyOsteoarthritisWOMACOrthopedic surgeryStatistical significanceRehabilitationQuality of life (healthcare)SurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective To discuss the effect of progressive resistance exercise (PRE) program on female knee osteoarthritis (KOA). Methods A prospective study including 92 female KOA patients was performed in the department of Rehabilitation and Orthopedics in second hospital of HeBei Medical university from August 2013 to September 2014, the average age was (55±11) years (rang from 40-70 years). All subjects were randomly divided into the experimental group (46 cases) and control group (46 cases). Subjects in experimental group participated PRE program and joint mobilization triple once a week. Subjects in the control group only participated joint mobilization. Assessments of pain, muscle strength, walking distance, function and quality of life were performed at baseline, 6 weeks and 12 weeks after surgery by a blinded assessor with The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index and the MOS item short from health survey (SF-36). After finishing the treatment, Satisfaction survey was conducted in all patients using Likert Scale. Results Both groups have one case dropped out, completed ratio of 12 months of follow-up was 96.7%. At 6 weeks and 12 weeks after surgery, VAS scores in experimental group were lower than control group [experimental group: 6 w: (6.0±1.8) scores, 12 w: (4.4±3.0) scores; control group: 6 w: (7.0±1.5) scores, 12 w: (6.5±2.5) scores]. Differences of VAS score between two groups had statistical significance (6 w: t=-2.573, P=0.022, 12 w: t=-2.721, P=0.001). WOMAC indexes in experimental group were higher than the control group [experimental group: 6 w: (40±14) scores, 12 w: (31±14) scores; control group: 6 w: (24±17) scores, 12 w: (38±13) scores], differences of WOMAC score between two groups had statistically significance (6 w: t=0.001, P=0.017, 12 w: t=-4.263, P=0.001). At 12 weeks postoperatively, the SF-36 scores of physical function and physical role limitation in the experimental group were higher than control group [experimental group: physical function: (50±22) scores, physical role limitation: (48±40) scores; control group: physical function: (32±17) scores, physical role limitation: (17±23) scores], differences of SF-36 score between two groups had statistically significance (physical function: t=-3.601, P<0.001, physical role limitation: t=-2.093, P=0.001). At 12 weeks postoperatively, the experimental group had better muscle strength than the control group [the experimental group: extensor: (11.1±4.9)kg, flexor: (8.6±2.7)kg; the control group: extensor: (6.9±4.2)kg, flexor: (6.3±2.4)kg], differences of 1 RM between two groups had statistically significance (extensor: t=-2.571, P=0.001, flexor: t=-4.882, P<0.001). The ratio of patient satisfaction of the experimental grup was significantly higher than the control group (χ2=17.997, P<0.05). Conclusion The PRE program was effective in reducing pain, improving function and stability of keen among female patients with KOA, our study demonstrate it is better than the traditional rehabilitation trainings. Key words: Osteoarthritis, knee; Pain; Quality of life; Progressive resistance exercise

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChin J Geriatr Orthop Rehabil(Electronic Edition)Same topicOsteoarthritis Treatment and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207