MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210715015 · doi:10.1186/s12891-022-05019-z

Efficacy of the SOAR knee health program: protocol for a two-arm stepped-wedge randomized delayed-controlled trial

2022· article· en· W4210715015 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Jackie L. Whittaker, Linda Truong, Justin M. Losciale, Trish Silvester-Lee, Maxi Miciak, Andrea Pajkic, Christina Le, Alison M. Hoens, Amber D. Mosewich, Michael A. Hunt, Linda Li, Ewa M. Roos

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Musculoskeletal Disorders · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaResearch CanadaUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMichael Smith Health Research BCArthritis Society
KeywordsMedicineRandomized controlled trialProtocol (science)Physical therapySports medicineOrthopedic surgeryPhysical medicine and rehabilitationInternal medicineSurgeryAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Knee trauma permanently elevates one's risk for knee osteoarthritis. Despite this, people at-risk of post-traumatic knee osteoarthritis rarely seek or receive care, and accessible and efficacious interventions to promote knee health after injury are lacking. Exercise can ameliorate some mechanisms and independent risk factors for osteoarthritis and, education and action-planning improve adherence to exercise and promote healthy behaviours. METHODS: To assess the efficacy of a virtually-delivered, physiotherapist-guided exercise-based program (SOAR) to improve knee health in persons discharged from care after an activity-related knee injury, 70 people (16-35 years of age, 12-48 months post-injury) in Vancouver Canada will be recruited for a two-arm step-wedged assessor-blinded delayed-control randomized trial. Participants will be randomly allocated to receive the intervention immediately or after a 10-week delay. The program consists of 1) one-time Knee Camp (group education, 1:1 individualized exercise and activity goal-setting); 2) weekly individualized home-based exercise and activity program with tracking, and; 3) weekly 1:1 physiotherapy-guided action-planning with optional group exercise class. Outcomes will be measured at baseline, 9- (primary endpoint), and 18-weeks. The primary outcome is 9-week change in knee extension strength (normalized peak concentric torque; isokinetic dynamometer). Secondary outcomes include 9-week change in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (accelerometer) and self-reported knee-related quality-of-life (Knee injury and OA Outcome Score subscale) and self-efficacy (Knee Self Efficacy Scale). Exploratory outcomes include 18-week change in primary and secondary outcomes, and 9- and 18- week change in other components of knee extensor and flexor muscle function, hop function, and self-reported symptoms, function, physical activity, social support, perceived self-care and kinesiophobia. Secondary study objectives will assess the feasibility of a future hybrid effectiveness-implementation trial protocol, determine the optimal intervention length, and explore stakeholder experiences. DISCUSSION: This study will assess the efficacy of a novel, virtually-delivered, physiotherapist-guided exercise-based program to optimize knee health in persons at increased risk of osteoarthritis due to a past knee injury. Findings will provide valuable information to inform the management of osteoarthritis risk after knee trauma and the conduct of a future effectiveness-implementation trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov reference: NTC04956393. Registered August 5, 2021, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04956393?term=SOAR&cond=osteoarthritis&cntry=CA&city=Vancouver&draw=2&rank=1.

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)0.029
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.070
Threshold uncertainty score0.233

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0290.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0090.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0160.005
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0040.005
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0080.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0700.013

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.339 · 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 designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations23
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Musculoskeletal DisordersSame topicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniquesFrench-language works237,207