MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4379471883 · doi:10.1177/23259671231172773

Exercise Therapy for Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

2023· review· en· W4379471883 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ling Mo, Banghua Jiang, Tao Mei, Daihua Zhou

Bibliographic record

VenueOrthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAmerican Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine
KeywordsMedicineWOMACOsteoarthritisMeta-analysisPhysical therapyCochrane LibraryVisual analogue scaleConfidence intervalRandomized controlled trialPhysical medicine and rehabilitationInternal medicineAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Exercise is an effective nonpharmaceutical therapy for knee osteoarthritis (KOA). Purpose: To identify the most effective type of exercise therapy for KOA with regard to pain, stiffness, joint function, and quality of life. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: The PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched, from inception to April 4, 2022. Included were randomized controlled trials that assessed the efficacy on KOA among 5 different exercise therapy groups (aquatic exercise [AE], stationary cycling [CY], resistance training [RT], traditional exercise [TC], and yoga [YG]) and compared with the control group. Outcomes among the groups were assessed with the Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), 6-minute walk test (6-MWT), visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, and Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS); weighted mean differences (WMDs) and 95% confidence intervals were calculated. Network meta-analyses comparing outcomes between all groups and with controls were performed, and group rankings were calculated using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA). Results: A total of 39 studies (N = 2646 participants) were included. Most of the studies failed to blind participants and researchers, resulting in a high risk of performance bias. Significantly worse WOMAC-Pain scores were seen in controls compared with all exercise interventions except AE (WMD [95% CI]: CY, -4.45 [-5.69 to -3.20]; RT, -4.28 [-5.48 to -3.07]; TC, -4.20 [-5.37 to -3.04]; and YG, -0.57 [-1.04 to -1.04]), and worse scores were seen in controls compared with YG regarding WOMAC-Stiffness (WMD, -1.40 [95% CI, -2.45 to -0.34]) and WOMAC-Function (WMD, -0.49 [95% CI, -0.95 to -0.02]). According to the SUCRA, CY was the most effective for improving WOMAC-Pain (80.8%) and 6-MWT (76.1%); YG was most effective for improving WOMAC-Stiffness (90.6%), WOMAC-Function (77.4%), KOOS-Activities of Daily Living (72.0%), and KOOS-Quality of Life (79.1%); AE was the most effective regarding VAS pain (77.2%) and KOOS-Pain (64.0%); and RT was the most effective regarding KOOS-Symptoms (84.5%). Conclusion: All 5 types of exercise were able to ameliorate KOA. AE (for pain relief) and YG (for joint stiffness, limited knee function, and quality of life) were the most effective approaches, followed by RT, CY, and TC.

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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.041
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.097

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.041
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0210.033
Bibliometrics0.0100.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.076
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations82
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOrthopaedic Journal of Sports MedicineSame topicOsteoarthritis Treatment and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207