Are the Effects of Resistance Exercise on Pain and Function in Knee and Hip Osteoarthritis Dependent on Exercise Volume, Duration, and Adherence? A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine dose parameters for resistance exercise associated with improvements in pain and physical function in knee and hip osteoarthritis (OA) and whether these improvements were related to adherence. METHODS: We searched six databases, from inception to January 28, 2023, for randomized controlled trials comparing land-based, resistance exercise-only interventions with no intervention, or any other intervention. There were four subgroups of intervention duration: 0 to <3 months, 3 to 6 months, >6 to <12 months, ≥12 months. The between-group effect was calculated for immediate postintervention pain and physical function (activities of daily living [ADL] and sports/recreation [SPORT]). RESULTS: For both knee and hip, data from 280 studies showed moderate benefit for pain, physical function ADL, and physical function SPORT in favor of interventions 3 to 6 months. For the knee, there was also a moderate benefit for physical function ADL in favor of interventions >6 to <12 months. From 151 knee and hip studies that provided total exercise volume data (frequency, time, duration), there was no association between volume with the effect size for pain and physical function. A total of 74 studies (69 knee, 5 hip) reported usable adherence data. There was no association between adherence with the effect size for pain and physical function. CONCLUSION: In knee and hip OA, resistance exercise interventions 3 to 6 months (and for the knee >6 to <12 months) duration improve pain and physical function. Improvements do not depend on exercise volume or adherence, suggesting exercise does not require rigid adherence to a specific dose.
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 | 0.018 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.039 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".