Effect of active mind-body movement therapies on older osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To systematically review the literature to quantify and compare the effects of active mind-body movement therapies (AMBMTs) on pain, stiffness, and joint function in older adults with osteoarthritis (OA). Methods We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, CINAHL, and PEDro. The outcome measures included the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and the 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36). Results A total of 27 studies involving 1781 patients were obtained. The results of meta-analysis showed that compared with the control group, the patients had significantly lower WOMAC pain score (SMD: −0.50, 95%CI: −0.68, −0.32; p < 0.01), stiffness score (SMD: −0.71, 95%CI: −1.02, −0.40; p < 0.01) and joint function score (SMD: −0.66, 95%CI: −0.85, −0.47; p < 0.01). Conclusion AMBMTs are a complementary therapy to improve pain in older adult patients with OA, of which Tai Ji is the most effective.
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 | 0.012 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.020 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".