Medical exercise therapy alone versus arthroscopic partial meniscectomy followed by medical exercise therapy for degenerative meniscal tear: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective To explore if medical exercise therapy (MET) alone is comparable to arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) followed by MET for knee pain, activity level, and physical function in middle-aged patients with degenerative meniscal tear (DMT) by a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Method A systematic search of electronic databases (PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science) was conducted to retrieve RCTs comparing MET+APM with MET alone for DMT. Risk of bias of the studies was evaluated. Outcomes assessed were pain relief, physical function, and activity level. Results A total of 6 RCTs containing 879 patients were included. After pooling the data of 5 researches, we found small significant differences support the APM + MET group for pain control assessed by Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) at 2 to 3 months (p = 0.004) and at 6 months (p = 0.04). And there were statistically improvements in APM + MET at 6 months compared with MET alone when changing measurement to visual analog scale (VAS) (p = 0.0003). Our analysis also found small significant differences favor the APM followed by MET group for physical function both at 2 to 3 months (p = 0.01, KOOS and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, WOMAC; and P = 0.40, Lysholm Knee Scoring Scale) and at 6 months (p = 0.01, KOOS and WOMAC). Conclusion We found favorable results of APM + MET up to 6 months for pain control and physical function. However, there were no differences at longer follow-up. The clinical applicability of APM + MET compared with MET should be interpreted carefully, and the potential of MET to treat DMT should be valued.
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 | 0.014 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.028 | 0.036 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".