Core muscle strengthening exercises in the management of hip osteoarthritis: outcomes of a 12-week programme
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective Osteoarthritis (OA) is caused by the destruction of the joint cartilage. Programmes based on quadriceps strengthening are now evidence-based but recently more importance is being given to optimal core stability. This study aimed at exploring the effects of a 12-week core exercise programme on pain and functional levels in patients with hip OA.Methodology A randomised controlled trial was carried out, with 60 participants randomly allocated into 3 groups. Participants in the control group received no intervention, whereas the others performed hip and hip and core exercises for a period of 12 weeks. All participants were assessed using the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS), Western Ontario McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC), 6 min Walk Test (6MWT), muscle testing and core stability at baseline and on completion of the 12-week exercise programme. Ethical approval was obtained from the University of Malta’s Faculty Research Ethics Committee REC FORM V_15062020 6302 and ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04771936Results Statistically significant improvements for participants in the hip and core exercise group were obtained in the 6MWT (p = .001), NPRS (p = .009), WOMAC (p = .005), core stability (p = .001). Participants enrolled in the hip exercise group also had significant improvements, in the 6MWD (p < .001); NPRS (p = .035) and WOMAC (p < .001) but not Core stability(p = .704). Participants in the control group registered no changes.Conclusion A 12-week exercise programme resulted in clinical and statistically significant improvements, ones mostly pronounced in the hip and core exercise group.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".