MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3048287617 · doi:10.1519/jpt.0000000000000279

Multimodal Interventions Including Rehabilitation Exercise for Older Adults With Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-analyses of Randomized Controlled Trials

2020· article· en· W3048287617 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geriatric Physical Therapy · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsInstitut Universitaire de Gériatrie de MontréalHôpital Maisonneuve-RosemontCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in RehabilitationCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-MontréalUniversité LavalUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRandomized controlled trialPsychological interventionRehabilitationMeta-analysisOsteoarthritisConfidence intervalSystematic review

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Musculoskeletal disorders (MSKDs) are the most common causes of disabilities for older adults. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to assess the effectiveness of multimodal interventions including exercise rehabilitation for older adults with chronic MSKDs. METHODS: A literature search was conducted up to February 2019 in 5 bibliographical databases to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared multimodal interventions including exercise rehabilitation with usual medical care or no intervention. Randomized controlled trials were assessed with the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. Meta-analyses were performed and pooled mean differences (MDs) or standardized mean differences (SMDs) were calculated. RESULTS: Sixteen RCTs (n = 2322 participants) were included. One RCT was considered at low risk of bias, 8 had some concerns of bias, and 7 had a high risk of bias. Participants suffered from hip or knee osteoarthritis (OA) (n = 12 RCTs), low back pain (LBP) (n = 2 RCTs) and generalized chronic pain (GCP) (n = 2 RCTs). Multimodal interventions were significantly more effective than usual care to decrease pain (visual analog scale, out of 10 points) in the short term, MD: -0.71 (95% confidence interval [CI] -1.08 to -0.34, n = 900), and in the long term: MD: -0.52 (95% CI -0.98 to -0.05, n = 575), but these differences are not considered clinically important. In terms of disabilities, multimodal interventions were also significantly more effective than usual care. The SMDs were -0.47 (95% CI -0.61 to -0.34, n = 903) and -0.29 (95% CI -0.46 to -0.13, n = 568) for OA trials in the short and long terms, respectively, and -0.47 (95% CI -0.81 to -0.12, n = 211) for LBP and GCP trials in the short term. The magnitude of these effects may be considered as small to moderate. CONCLUSION: Multimodal intervention including exercise rehabilitation combined with usual medical care is an efficacious therapeutic option to reduce disabilities in older adults with chronic MSKDs. A significant but not clinically important effect was observed for pain. The most beneficial component of the multimodal interventions in terms of education, exercises, or medication remains to be determined.

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)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.050
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.102

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.050
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0210.038
Bibliometrics0.0070.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.336 · 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
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

Citations44
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geriatric Physical TherapySame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207