Examining the influence of pain neuroscience education followed by a Pilates exercises program in individuals with knee osteoarthritis: a pilot randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is a multifactorial form of rheumatic condition contributing to physical and psychological factors. Treatments have been provided solely and often compared with each other. An alternative view is that combined treatments addressing physical and psychological factors may result in more benefits. This study aimed to investigate the effect of pain neuroscience education (PNE) followed by Pilates exercises (PEs) in participants with knee OA, compared to PE alone. METHODS: In this two-arm assessor-blind pilot randomized controlled trial, fifty-four community-dwelling adults with knee OA were randomly assigned to the PNE followed by PEs and PEs groups (27 in each group). The study was conducted between early July 2021 and early March 2022 at the university's health center. Primary outcomes were Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) subscales of pain and physical limitation and secondary outcomes were Pain Catastrophizing Scale, Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia, Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire, and Timed "Up & Go" test covering function. The primary and secondary outcomes were measured at baseline and eight weeks post-treatment. A general linear mixed model was used for between-group comparison with a statistical significance level of 0.05. RESULTS: Significant within-group differences were observed in all outcomes in both groups at post-treatment. There were no statistically between-group differences in pain (adjusted mean difference: -0.8; 95% CI -2.2 to 0.7; p = 0.288), physical limitation (adjusted mean difference: -0.4; 95% CI -4 to 3.1; p = 0.812) and function (adjusted mean difference: -0.8; 95% CI -1.8 to 0.1; p = 0.069) at eight weeks. For pain catastrophizing (adjusted mean difference: -3.9; 95% CI -7.2 to -0.6; p = 0.021), kinesiophobia (adjusted mean difference: -4.2; 95% CI -8.1 to -0.4; p = 0.032), and self-efficacy (adjusted mean difference: 6.1; 95% CI 0.7 to 11.5; p = 0.028) statistically between-group improvements were observed favoring PNE followed by PEs group after the treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Combining PNE with PEs could have superior effects on psychological characteristics but not on pain, physical limitation, and function, compared to PEs alone. This pilot study emphasizes the need to investigate the combined effects of different interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: IRCT20210701051754N1.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".