Improved function and strength in patients with knee osteoarthritis as a result of adding a two-day educational program to usual care. Prospective randomized trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The primary aim was to quantify the improvements on function and pain of patients with knee osteoarthritis (KOA), short education and low income by a two-day self-management program. Secondary aims were verifying if the program improves clinically relevant measures of weight and strength. Design: A prospective randomized clinical trial was conducted in a tertiary hospital in Brazil with 191 patients with Kellgren & Lawrence grades II and III KOA who were allocated to two groups: control (usual care- CG) and intervention (usual care and two days of an OA self-management program with a multiprofessional team - IG). Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Index (WOMAC), weight, body mass index (BMI), Timed up and go (TUG) and five Times Sit to Stand Test (FTSST) were assessed at baseline, six, 12 and 24 months. Results: Groups were similar at baseline (p > 0.05). Both groups exhibited improved WOMAC total and subsets scores throughout the study (p < 0.001). However, only IG improved WOMAC total and subsets in all follow-ups above 20% (minimally clinically important difference), with differences in WOMAC pain, function and total scores (p = 0.001, p < 0.001, and p < 0.001, respectively) and best effect sizes at 1 year (0.355, 0.651 and 0.770, respectively). IG group lost weight (p < 0.001) and BMI (p < 0.01). Both groups exhibited improvements in TUG and FTSST (p < 0.001) that remained in all evaluations. FTSST results favored the IG, p = 0.032. Conclusions: An educational program to patients with KOA, short schooling and low income improves clinically important measures of pain and function.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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".