Structured home-based exercise programme and concentric versus eccentric-based stair training programme for pain and function in knee osteoarthritis: a two-phase, double-blinded, randomised controlled trial protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is a leading cause of pain and disability worldwide. While exercise is crucial for managing OA, the effectiveness of a well-structured and efficient home-based, self-management exercise programme remains unclear. Therefore, this two-phase randomised controlled trial will evaluate the effectiveness of a structured home-based exercise programme (HEP) and concentric-based stair training programme versus eccentric-based stair training programme (CSTP vs ESTP) to develop an evidence-based approach for knee OA. Methods and analysis This study will be a participant and assessor-blinded, randomised controlled trial that will enrol 247 knee OA participants. In Phase I, there will be a 1:1 split of participants into: an HEP and a control group P I for 8 weeks. In Phase II, eligible participants from Phase I will be a 1:1:1 split into: a CSTP, an ESTP and a control group P II for another 8 weeks. The number of exercise programmes will last for 16 weeks, including a 24-week follow-up. The primary outcomes of pain intensity, pressure pain threshold and functional ability will be measured using a numeric pain rating scale, pressure algometer and Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC). The secondary outcomes of muscle strength, range of motion, aerobic capacity and quality of life will be measured using a modified sphygmomanometer, universal goniometer, 6-minute walk test and 36-item short-form survey. All outcomes will be measured at pretest (T 1 ), post-test (T 2 and T 3 ) and follow-up (T 4 ). Ethics and dissemination All activities and exercise programmes will follow the Helsinki Declaration of 2020. The findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals and disseminated at international conferences. Trial registration number CTRI/2025/03/081574.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".