Exercise for osteoarthritis of the hip
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Current international treatment guidelines recommending therapeutic exercise for people with symptomatic hip OA report are based on expert opinion only. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether land-based therapeutic exercise is beneficial for people with hip OA in terms of reduced joint pain and/or improved physical function. SEARCH STRATEGY: Five databases were searched from 1966 up until August 2008. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) recruiting people with hip OA and comparing some form of land-based therapeutic exercise (as opposed to exercises conducted in the water) with a non-exercise group. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three reviewers independently extracted data and assessed methodological quality. All analyses were conducted on continuous outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: Combining the results of the five included RCTs demonstrated a small treatment effect for pain, but no benefit in terms of improved self-reported physical function. Only one of these five RCTs exclusively recruited people with symptomatic hip OA. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The limited number and small sample size of the included RCTs restricts the confidence that can be attributed to these results. Adequately powered RCTs evaluating exercise programs specifically designed for people with symptomatic hip OA need to be conducted.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".