MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3210319063 · doi:10.1093/ptj/pzab195

Reporting of Adverse Events in Randomized Controlled Trials of Therapeutic Exercise for Hip Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review

2021· review· en· W3210319063 on OpenAlexaff
Khara A. James, Johan von Heideken, Maura D. Iversen

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Therapy · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsCentre for Movement Disorders
FundersNational Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin DiseasesNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsMedicineConsolidated Standards of Reporting TrialsPhysical therapyRandomized controlled trialAdverse effectCINAHLPsychological interventionMEDLINECochrane LibraryMeta-analysisOsteoarthritisSystematic reviewAlternative medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to describe adverse events (AEs) and dropouts (DOs) in randomized controlled trials of therapeutic exercise for hip osteoarthritis (HOA) and to identify whether Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines were followed. METHODS: The Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, and CINAHL databases were searched. Randomized controlled trials of therapeutic exercise for HOA published in English from January 1, 1980 to August 1, 2020 were included. Studies were excluded if other interventions were provided, if participants had previous hip arthroplasty, or if AEs and DOs for HOA participants were not reported separately. The internal validity of each study (Physiotherapy Evidence Database [PEDro] scoring) was assessed, participant and intervention characteristics were extracted, and the existence of a clear statement and reasons for AEs and DOs was reported. Descriptive statistics characterized results. Data heterogeneity prohibited the use of meta-analysis. RESULTS: Fourteen studies (mean PEDro score = 7.4; range = 6-10) from 10 countries were included, with 707 participants exercising. Exercise intensity was unspecified in 72.2% of exercise arms. Six studies (42.9%) included a statement of AEs, and 32 AEs were reported. All studies had a DO statement, but 29.0% of DOs occurred for unknown reasons. Six studies (42.9%) gave reasons for DOs that could be classified as AEs in 9 participants; 41 participants (5.8%) experienced exercise-related AEs. CONCLUSION: Reports of AEs were inconsistent, some DOs were potentially misclassified, and primary components of exercise interventions were frequently unreported. Despite these limitations, the overall low number of nonserious AEs suggests that the exercise-related risk of harm is minimal for individuals with HOA. IMPACT: Understanding the risk of harm associated with exercise for HOA can better inform safe dosing of exercise, clinical implementation, and replicability. Informative, consistent reporting of AEs, DOs, and exercise is needed. Greater use of the CONSORT harms-reporting checklist is warranted.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (broad)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.321
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0670.014
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.106
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.307 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations17
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical TherapySame topicOsteoarthritis Treatment and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207