MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3175185406 · doi:10.1016/j.jphys.2021.06.011

Patient education improves pain and function in people with knee osteoarthritis with better effects when combined with exercise therapy: a systematic review

2021· review· en· W3175185406 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Danilo de Oliveira Silva, Mark Merolli, Emily C. Bell, Kay M. Crossley, Christian J. Barton

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of physiotherapy · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePhysical therapyCINAHLOsteoarthritisMeta-analysisMEDLINEPsychological interventionRandomized controlled trialGrading (engineering)Physical medicine and rehabilitationInternal medicineAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

QUESTION: Is patient education effective as a standalone intervention or combined with other interventions for people with knee osteoarthritis? DESIGN: Systematic review of randomised controlled trials. MEDLINE, EMBASE, SPORTDiscus, CINAHL and Web of Science were searched from inception to April 2020. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool was used for included studies, and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) was used to interpret certainty of results. PARTICIPANTS: People with knee osteoarthritis. INTERVENTION: Any patient education intervention compared with any non-pharmacological comparator. OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes were self-reported pain and function. RESULTS: Twenty-nine trials involving 4,107 participants were included, informing low to very-low certainty evidence. Nineteen of 28 (68%) pooled comparisons were not statistically significant. Patient education was superior to usual care for pain (SMD -0.35, 95% CI -0.56 to -0.14) and function in the short term (-0.31, 95% CI -0.62 to 0.00), but inferior to exercise therapy for pain in the short term (0.77, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.47). Combining patient education with exercise therapy produced superior outcomes compared with patient education alone for pain in the short term (0.44, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.69) and function in the short (0.81, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.08) and medium term (0.39, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.62). When using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index for these comparisons, clinically important differences indicated that patient education was inferior to exercise therapy for pain in the short term (MD 1.56, 95% CI 0.14 to 2.98) and the combination of patient education and exercise therapy for function in the short term (8.94, 95% CI 6.05 to 11.82). CONCLUSION: Although patient education produced statistically superior short-term pain and function outcomes compared with usual care, differences were small and may not be clinically important. Patient education should not be provided as a standalone treatment and should be combined with exercise therapy to provide statistically superior and clinically important short-term improvements in function compared with education alone. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42019122004.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
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: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.009
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.251
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 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

Citations134
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of physiotherapySame topicOsteoarthritis Treatment and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207