Patient education improves pain and function in people with knee osteoarthritis with better effects when combined with exercise therapy: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Question: Is patient education effective as a standalone intervention or combined with other interventions for people with knee osteoarthritis? Design: Systematic review of randomised controlled trials. MEDLINE, EMBASE, SPORTDiscus, CINAHL and Web of Science were searched from inception to April 2020. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool was used for included studies, and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) was used to interpret certainty of results. Participants: People with knee osteoarthritis. Intervention: Any patient education intervention compared with any non-pharmacological comparator. Outcome measures: Primary outcomes were self-reported pain and function. Results: Twenty-nine trials involving 4,107 participants were included, informing low to very-low certainty evidence. Nineteen of 28 (68%) pooled comparisons were not statistically significant. Patient education was superior to usual care for pain (SMD −0.35, 95% CI −0.56 to −0.14) and function in the short term (−0.31, 95% CI −0.62 to 0.00), but inferior to exercise therapy for pain in the short term (0.77, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.47). Combining patient education with exercise therapy produced superior outcomes compared with patient education alone for pain in the short term (0.44, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.69) and function in the short (0.81, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.08) and medium term (0.39, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.62). When using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index for these comparisons, clinically important differences indicated that patient education was inferior to exercise therapy for pain in the short term (MD 1.56, 95% CI 0.14 to 2.98) and the combination of patient education and exercise therapy for function in the short term (8.94, 95% CI 6.05 to 11.82). Conclusion: Although patient education produced statistically superior short-term pain and function outcomes compared with usual care, differences were small and may not be clinically important. Patient education should not be provided as a standalone treatment and should be combined with exercise therapy to provide statistically superior and clinically important short-term improvements in function compared with education alone. Registration: PROSPERO CRD42019122004.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".