Efficacy of traditional Chinese exercise for the treatment of pain and disability on knee osteoarthritis patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To evaluate the efficacy of Traditional Chinese Exercises (TCEs) in treating knee osteoarthritis (KOA). Methods Four databases without language or publication status restrictions were searched until April 1, 2022. Based on the principle of Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes and Study design, the researchers searched for randomized controlled trials of TCEs in treating KOA. The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) pain was defined as the primary outcome, whereas stiffness and physical function were the secondary outcomes. Subsequently, two researchers conducted the process independently, and the data were analyzed using the RevManV.5.3 software. Results Overall, 17 randomized trials involving 1174 participants met the inclusion criteria. The synthesized data of TCEs showed a significant improvement in WOMAC pain score [standardized mean difference (SMD) = −0.31; 95% confidence interval (CI): −0.52 to −0.10; p = 0.004], stiffness score (SMD = −0.63; 95% CI: −1.01 to −0.25; p = 0.001) and physical function score (SMD = −0.38; 95% CI: −0.61 to −0.15; p = 0.001) compared with the control group. Sensitivity analyses were performed to determine the combined results' stability, which was unstable after excluding articles with greater heterogeneity. A further subgroup analysis showed that it might be the reason for the heterogeneity of the different traditional exercise intervention methods. Additionally, it showed that the Taijiquan group improved pain (SMD = 0.74; 95% CI: −1.09 to 0.38; p < 0.0001; I2 = 50%), stiffness (SMD = −0.67; 95% CI −1.14 to 0.20; p = 0.005) and physical function score (SMD = −0.35; 95% CI: −0.54 to 0.16; p = 0.0003; I2 = 0%) better than the control group. The Baduanjin group improved stiffness (SMD = −1.30; 95% CI: −2.32 to 0.28; p = 0.01) and physical function (SMD = −0.52; 95% CI: −0.97 to 0.07; p = 0.02) better than the control group. However, the other interventions showed no difference compared with the control group. Conclusion This systematic review provides partial evidence of the benefits of TCEs for knee pain and dysfunction. However, due to the heterogeneity of exercise, more high-quality clinical studies should be conducted to verify the efficacy. Systematic review registration https://inplasy.com/inplasy-2022-4-0154/ , identifier: International Platform of Registered Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocols (INPLASY) [INPLSY202240154].
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 | 0.019 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.026 | 0.031 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".