Effectiveness and cost‐effectiveness of longstanding exercise therapy versus usual care in patients with axial spondyloarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis and severe limitations: The protocols of two parallel randomized controlled trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Research on effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of longstanding exercise therapy in patients with axial SpondyloArthritis (axSpA) or Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) is scarce, and mainly concerned patients with a relatively favorable health status. We aim to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of longstanding exercise therapy compared to usual care in the subgroup of patients with axSpA or RA and severe limitations in functioning. METHODS: In two separate, parallel randomized controlled trials the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of longstanding, active exercise therapy (52 weeks) compared with usual care (1:1) will be evaluated. The longstanding, active exercise therapy will focus on improving individual limitations in daily activities and participation and will be given by a trained physical therapist in the vicinity of the participant. For each diagnosis, 215 patients with severe limitations in activities and participation will be included. Assessments are performed at baseline, 12, 26, and 52 weeks. The primary outcome measure of effectiveness is the individual level of functioning (activities and participation), as measured with the Patient-Specific Complaints instrument at 52 weeks. For cost-effectiveness analyses, the EuroQol (EQ-5D-5L) and questionnaires on healthcare use and productivity will be administered. The economic evaluation will be a cost-utility analysis from a societal perspective. After 52 weeks, the patients in the usual care group are offered longstanding, active exercise therapy as well. Follow-up assessments are done at 104, 156, and 208 weeks. CONCLUSION: The results of these studies will provide insights in the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of longstanding exercise therapy in the subgroup of axSpA and RA patients with severe functional limitations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".