Randomized Trial Investigating Similar Benefits of Face-to-Face and Telerehabilitation Delivery in Circuit Training for Knee Osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study compared the efficacy of a circuit training program delivered through face-to-face and telerehabilitation modalities, an online videoconferencing application, for people with knee osteoarthritis.This study compared the efficacy of a circuit training program delivered through face-to-face and telerehabilitation modalities, an online videoconferencing application, for people with knee osteoarthritis. The high adherence rates and comparable outcomes suggest that telerehabilitation is a feasible, safe and acceptable alternative for patients. The findings of this study should be taken into consideration for the current practice in Saudi Arabia, and more technology-based interventions need to be prescribed to people with knee osteoarthritis. Telerehabilitation is an effective, feasible and acceptable alternative to face-to-face circuit training for knee osteoarthritis patients, offering similar benefits in terms of pain reduction, joint function, and muscle strength. Future research should focus on understanding the predictors influencing patients’ choices between rehabilitation modalities and further implementing telemedicine in knee osteoarthritis care.T This study is a randomized controlled trial where people with knee osteoarthritis were recruited from a private rehabilitation center, Physiozone rehabilitation center, in Saudi Arabia and randomised to the intervention (personalised circuit training program delivered through telerehabilitation modalities, an online videoconferencing application) or the control group (personalised circuit training program delivered face-to-face) for 12 weeks, up to 45 minutes three times per week. The main outcome measures are related to attrition, safety, and adherence. The clinical measures included pain, joint function, and muscle strength, followed by follow-up assessments at weeks 14 and 26. Pain was measured using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), and joint function was assessed using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS). Muscle strength was evaluated using isokinetic and handheld dynamometry. The participants completed a questionnaire on the acceptability of the intervention. A total of 100 participants were randomized into intervention (telerehabilitation, n = 50) and control (face-to-face, n = 50) groups. None of the participants were dropped out of the study, and no adverse events were recorded. Participants in the intervention group completed their program on an average of 3.6 ± 1.3 and in the control group on an average of 2.9 ± 0.8. Both groups demonstrated significant improvements in pain reduction, joint function, and muscle strength by weeks 14 and 26, with no significant differences between the two groups, indicating comparable efficacy to face-to-face interventions.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| 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) | 0.012 | 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".