Effectiveness of aquatic exercises compared to patient-education on health status in individuals with knee osteoarthritis: a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective:To compare the effectiveness of aquatic exercises with patient-education in individuals with knee osteoarthritis.Design:Randomized controlled trial with blinded assessor and intention-to-treat analysis.Setting:Aquatic Physiotherapy Centre and Primary Health Care Unit.Subjects:A total of 60 patients, aged 68.3 (SD = 4.8) with clinical symptoms and radiographic grading (Kellgren–Lawrence 1–4) of knee osteoarthritis were included.Interventions:An eight-week treatment protocol of aquatic exercise (n = 31) (16 individual sessions, twice a week) and an educational program (group sessions, once a week) (n = 29).Main measures:Before, after eight-week intervention, and a three-month follow-up with results for the following outcome measures: pain, function, quality of life, functional mobility, and depression.Results:At the end of treatment, the WOMAC (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index) functional capacity values reduced in favour of the aquatic exercise group for both the total score MD (mean difference) = –14.2; 95% CI (confidence interval) (−18; −10.5), P = 0.04 and the pain domain MD = −3.8 points; 95% CI (−8.71; −1), P = 0.021. The total score also reduced in the follow-up: MD = −12.3 points; 95% CI (−24.7; −6.1), P = 0.017. No differences were found for the outcomes functional mobility or depression.Conclusion:Aquatic exercise improved pain and function after eight weeks, and function at the three-month follow-up compared to the patient-education program.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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".