Improving the Effectiveness of Exercise Therapy for Adults With Knee Osteoarthritis: A Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial (BEEP Trial)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To investigate whether knee osteoarthritis (OA) related pain and function can be improved by offering enhanced physical therapist-led exercise interventions. Design: Three-arm prospectively designed pragmatic randomized controlled trial. Setting: General practices and National Health Service physical therapy services in England. Participants: 514 adults (252 men, 262 women) aged ≥45 years with a clinical diagnosis of knee osteoarthritis (N=514). Mean Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) scores at baseline were 8.4 for pain and 28.1 for function. Interventions: Participants were individually randomized (1:1:1 allocation) to usual physical therapy care (UC control: up to 4 sessions of advice and exercise over 12 weeks), individually tailored exercise (ITE: individualized, supervised, and progressed lower limb exercises, 6-8 sessions over 12 weeks), or targeted exercise adherence (TEA: transitioning from lower limb exercise to general physical activity, 8-10 contacts over 6 months). Main Outcome Measures: Primary outcomes were pain and physical function measured by the WOMAC at 6 months. Secondary outcomes were measured at 3, 6, 9, 18, and 36 months. Results: Participants receiving UC, ITE, and TEA all experienced moderate improvement in pain and function. There were no significant differences between groups at 6 months (adjusted mean differences (95% confidence intervals): pain UC vs ITE, -0.3 (-1.0 to 0.4), UC vs TEA, -0.3 (-1.0 to 0.4); function UC vs ITE, 0.5 (-1.9 to 2.9), UC vs TEA, -0.9 (-3.3 to 1.5)), or any other time-point. Conclusions: Patients receiving UC experienced moderate improvement in pain and function; however, ITE and TEA did not lead to superior outcomes. Other strategies for patients with knee osteoarthritis to enhance the benefits of exercise-based physical therapy are needed.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".