Comparison of a Group-/Home-Based and a Weight-Machine-Based Exercise Training for Patients with Hip or Knee Osteoarthritis—A Secondary Analysis of Two Trial Interventions in a Real-World Context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to compare an individual weight-machine-based strengthening program (MbT) with a group-/homebased training offering strengthening/functional exercises (GHT) in a general health care setting. A total of 657 participants (GHT = 521, MbT = 136) suffering from hip/knee OA were included and analysed with a pre–post design (baseline (T0)/3-months (T1)). Primary outcomes were pain and physical functioning (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, range 0–10). Additionally, adherence and perceived patient benefit were measured (T1). Data were analysed with linear mixed models (time, treatment, baseline pain/physical impairment severity) adjusted for patient characteristics. No significant between-group differences in pain reduction/functional improvements (time*treatment*baseline pain/physical impairment severity, pain/function: n.s.; time*treatment, pain: p = 0.884, function: p = 0.067). Within-group improvements were dependent on baseline severity: Higher severity levels demonstrated larger changes from baseline. Perceived patient-benefit (very high to high, GHT: 78%, MbT: 92%) and exercise adherence (Dropouts T1: GHT: 27.8%, MbT: 16.2%; adherence to supervised sessions: GHT: 89%, MbT: 92%) was slightly better in the MbT. In summary, both MbT and GHT, showed positive results for patients with at least moderate disease symptoms. Findings for physical functioning, perceived patient-benefit, exercise adherence hint towards a superiority of MbT. Individual preferences should be considered when prescribing exercise therapy. Trial registration: (1) German Clinical Trial Register DRKS00009251. Registered 10 September 2015. (2) German Clinical Trial Register DRKS00009257. Registered 11 September 2015.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".