Yoga or Strengthening Exercise for Knee Osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Importance: There is limited evidence on the comparative effectiveness of different exercise modalities, such as yoga and strengthening exercises, for managing knee osteoarthritis (OA). Objective: To compare the effectiveness of yoga vs strengthening exercise for reducing knee pain over 12 weeks in patients with knee OA. Design, Setting, and Participants: This single-center, assessor-blinded (for nonpatient-reported outcomes), parallel-arm, active-controlled, superiority randomized clinical trial included adults aged 40 years or older with knee OA and knee pain levels of 40 or higher on a 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS) in Southern Tasmania, Australia. Participants were recruited from April 2021 to June 2022, and follow-up was completed in December 2022. Data were analyzed from May 2023 to July 2024. Interventions: Participants were randomized 1:1 to the yoga and strengthening exercise groups. Both groups attended 2 supervised and 1 home-based session per week for 12 weeks followed by 3 unsupervised home-based sessions per week for weeks 13 to 24. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the between-group difference in VAS score over 12 weeks assessed using a range of 0 (no pain) to 100 (worst possible pain) with a prespecified noninferiority margin of 10 mm. Secondary outcomes included knee pain over 24 weeks; Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) knee pain, function, and stiffness; patient global assessment; Osteoarthritis Research Society International-Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Clinical Trials response; physical performance measures; leg muscle strength; health-related quality of life assessed via the Assessment of Quality of Life-8 Dimensions (AQol-8D) utility score; depression assessed with the Patient Health Questionnaire-9; and neuropathic pain assessment over 12 and 24 weeks. Analyses were based on the intention-to-treat principle. Results: In total, 117 participants were randomized to the yoga (n = 58) or strengthening exercise (n = 59) program. Baseline characteristics of the participants were similar, with a mean (SD) age of 62.5 (8.3) years, and 85 participants (72.6%) were female. The mean (SD) baseline VAS knee pain score of 53.8 (16.0) indicated moderate knee pain. Over 12 weeks, the between-group mean difference in VAS knee pain change was -1.1 mm (95% CI, -7.8 to 5.7 mm), which was not statistically significant but remained within the prespecified noninferiority margin. Of 27 secondary outcomes assessed over 12 and 24 weeks, 7 were statistically significant in favor of yoga. The yoga group showed modestly greater improvements than the strengthening exercise group (between-group differences) over 24 weeks for WOMAC pain (-44.5 mm [95% CI, -70.7 to -18.3 mm]), WOMAC function (-139 mm [95% CI, -228.3 to -49.7 mm]), WOMAC stiffness (-17.6 mm [95% CI, -30.9 to -4.3 mm]), patient global assessment (-7.6 mm [95% CI, -15.1 to -0.2 mm]), and 40-m fast-paced walk test (1.8 [95% CI, 0.4-3.2]). In addition, the yoga group had a modestly greater improvement than the strengthening exercise for depression at 12 weeks (between-group difference in PHQ-9 score, -1.1 [95% CI, -1.9 to -0.2]) and quality of life at 24 weeks (between-group difference in AQoL-8D score, 0.04 [95% CI, 0.0 to 0.07]). Adverse events were similar in both groups and mild. Conclusion and relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, yoga did not significantly reduce knee pain compared with strengthening exercises. However, yoga was found to be noninferior to strengthening exercises, suggesting that integrating yoga as an alternative or complementary exercise option in clinical practice may help in managing knee OA. Trial registration: ANZCTR.org Identifier: ACTRN12621000066886.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".