MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411570824 · doi:10.3389/fresc.2025.1596966

Effects of proprioceptive exercise for knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2025· review· en· W4411570824 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Debiao Yu, Xiaoting Chen, Peng Chen, Nan Chen, Bin Shao, Qiuxiang Lin, Fuchun Wu

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Rehabilitation Sciences · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWOMACOsteoarthritisPhysical therapyProprioceptionMedicineRandomized controlled trialRating scalePhysical medicine and rehabilitationVisual analogue scaleBalance (ability)Timed Up and Go testPsychologyInternal medicineAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and objective Despite the extensive utilization of proprioceptive exercise in the management of knee osteoarthritis (KOA), the therapeutic efficacy of this approach remains inconclusive. The present study sought to systematically evaluate the effects of proprioceptive exercise on symptoms and functional outcomes in patients with KOA, with a particular focus on balance performance. Methods Following PRISMA guidelines, a comprehensive search was conducted across six electronic databases from the establishment of the database to January 21, 2025. The inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials investigating proprioceptive exercise interventions for KOA. The primary outcome measures encompassed balance function assessment (Timed Up and Go test), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) total score and its pain, stiffness, and function subscales, and pain intensity (Numerical Rating Scale and Visual Analog Scale). Subgroup analyses were stratified by intervention duration (≤8 weeks vs. >8 weeks). Results A comprehensive analysis of 22 randomized controlled trials revealed that proprioceptive exercise significantly improved performance of the Timed Up and Go test [MD = 1.53, 95% CI (1.09, 1.97), I2 = 0%, P < 0.00001]. Additionally, a significant improvement in WOMAC-total scores was observed [MD = 3.37, 95% CI (1.58, 5.16), I2 = 44%, P = 0.0002]. However, individual WOMAC subscales for pain (P = 0.11, I2 = 85%), stiffness (P = 0.97, I2 = 0%), and function (P = 0.16, I2 = 86%) showed no significant improvements. For pain assessment, Numerical Rating Scale scores showed a significant improvement [MD = 0.85, 95% CI (0.56, 1.15), I2 = 46%, P < 0.00001]. Notably, Visual Analog Scale scores exhibited a significant reduction, but only in the short-term intervention subgroup (≤8 weeks) [MD = 0.27, 95% CI (0.11, 0.42), I2 = 0%, P = 0.0008], whereas longer interventions (>8 weeks) showed no significant benefit [MD = −0.49, 95% CI (−1.10, 0.11), I2 = 0%, P = 0.11]. Conclusion Based on low-certainty evidence, proprioceptive exercise has been demonstrated to be efficacious in improving balance function and overall clinical status in patients with KOA. Optimal benefits have been observed during short-term intervention periods.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.073

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0200.029
Bibliometrics0.0080.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.311 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Rehabilitation SciencesSame topicOsteoarthritis Treatment and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207