Effects of Activity Modification With Weight-Bearing Exercises on Pain, Quality of Life, and Disability in Knee Osteoarthritis Patients—A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Knee osteoarthritis poses a substantial public health challenge, characterized by escalating pain, physical limitations, and diminished quality of life. This study aimed to explore the feasibility and effects of activity modification paired with weight-bearing exercises on pain, quality of life, and disability in knee osteoarthritis patients. Considering the lack of established guidelines, especially in populations like India, our research seeks to address this gap and potentially enhance patient outcomes. METHOD: In this pilot randomized controlled trial, participants were randomly assigned to 2 groups. The intervention group received activity modification and weight-bearing exercises alongside conventional physiotherapy, while the control group received conventional physiotherapy alone. We assessed primary outcomes using a numerical pain rating scale for pain and the World Health Organization Quality of Life Brief Version Scale for quality of life. Secondary outcomes included disability, evaluated through the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, and physical performance assessed with the 30-second sit-to-stand test. RESULT: Among the 30 participants, the intervention group exhibited significant improvements in pain during activity (P = .002), pain at rest (P = .010), and all domains of quality of life. Moreover, the intervention group displayed substantial enhancements in disability (P = .001) and physical function (P =< .001). CONCLUSION: This study showcased the feasibility and beneficial outcomes resulting from the synergistic approach of combined activity modification and weight-bearing exercises, leading to reduced pain and disability, and substantial improvements in both quality of life, and physical performance for individuals with knee osteoarthritis.
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 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 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".