The control group matters: Pain, physical function and strength improvements relative to the comparator intervention in knee and hip osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In knee and hip osteoarthritis (OA), the mechanism for resistance exercise improving clinical outcomes and the dose-response between strength and clinical outcomes are unknown; in part due to inconsistent trial designs across studies. PURPOSE: To determine whether the effects of resistance exercise interventions on pain and function differ based on comparator group; and whether there is an association between improvements in lower extremity strength with improvements in pain and function in knee and hip OA. METHODS: We searched 6 databases (inception to January 28 2023,) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing land-based, resistance exercise-only interventions with no intervention or any other intervention. There were four subgroups for comparator intervention: NONE (none/placebo/sham/usual care), EXE (other exercise interventions alone), NONEXE (non-exercise interventions alone), COMBO (combined exercise + non-exercise interventions). The between-group effect (ES) was calculated for immediate post-intervention pain and function (activities of daily living (ADL) and sports/recreation (SPORT)). Meta-regression analyses were completed to evaluate the association between improvements in lower extremity strength (independent variable) and improvements in pain, ADL and SPORT (dependent variables), irrespective of comparator intervention. RESULTS: For knee OA (257 studies), there were large benefits for pain [ES (95 % CI) = -0.92 (-1.15, -0.69)], ADL [-0.79 (-1.01, -0.56)] and SPORT [-0.79 (-1.02, -0.56)] favouring resistance exercise interventions compared to NONE. For knee pain, there was also a moderate benefit favouring COMBO interventions compared to resistance exercise interventions [0.44 (0.23, 0.65)]. For hip OA (15 studies), there were moderate benefits for pain [-0.51 (-0.68, -0.33)], ADL [-0.57 (-0.78, -0.36)] and SPORT [-0.52 (-0.70, -0.35)] favouring exercise interventions compared to NONE. For hip pain, there was also a moderate benefit favouring NONEXE interventions compared to resistance exercise interventions [0.57 (0.17, 0.97)]. For knee OA, greater strength gains were associated with larger improvements in pain [β (95 % CI) = -0.24 (-0.38, -0.09)], ADL [-0.43 (-0.73, -0.12)] and SPORT [-0.37 (-0.73, -0.00)]. CONCLUSION: In knee and hip OA, the effects of resistance exercise on pain and function improvements depend on the comparator intervention. For knee OA, a dose-response relationship was observed between lower extremity strength gains with pain and function improvements.
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 | 0.047 | 0.127 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.020 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".