Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31033900›Full record

Trial reportMedicine and science in sports and exercise2019

Eccentric and Concentric Resistance Exercise Comparison for Knee Osteoarthritis.

Kevin R Vincent, Terrie Vasilopoulos, Cindy Montero, Heather K Vincent

Open access · greenAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Medicine and science in sports and exercise, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 10 pooled it
5.2field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

40 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 76 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Kevin R VincentDepartment of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, College of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.
Terrie VasilopoulosDepartment of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, College of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.
Cindy MonteroDepartment of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, College of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.
Heather K VincentDepartment of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, College of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.
University of Florida · US

Funding

Comparative Resistance Exercise Effects on Knee Osteoarthritis Pain, Functional IR03AR059786 · NIAMS · UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA · PI VINCENT, KEVIN ROBERT · 2010 to 2012
$214k
NIAMS NIH HHS L30 AR061840NIAMS NIH HHS R03 AR059786
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThis study aimed to compare the efficacy of eccentrically focused resistance exercise (ECC RT) to concentrically focused resistance exercise (CNC RT) on knee osteoarthritis (OA) symptoms and strength.

methodsNinety participants consented. Participants were randomized to CNC RT, ECC RT, or a wait-list, no-exercise control group. Four months of supervised exercise training was completed using traditional weight machines (CNC RT) or modified-matched machines that overloaded the eccentric action (ECC RT). Main outcomes included one-repetition maximal strength (knee extension, leg flexion, and leg press), weekly rate of strength gain, Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) total score and subscores.

resultsFifty-four participants (60-85 yr, 61% women) completed the study. Both CNC RT and ECC RT groups showed 16%-28% improvement relative to the wait-list, no-exercise control group (P = 0.003-0.005) for all leg strength measures. The rate of weekly strength gain was greater for CNC RT than for ECC RT for leg press and knee flexion (by 2.9%-4.8%; both, P < 0.05) but not knee extension (0.7%; P = 0.38). There were no significant differences in WOMAC total and subscores across groups over time. Leg press strength change was the greatest contributor to change in WOMAC total scores (R = 0.223). The change in knee flexion strength from baseline to month 4 was a significant predictor of the change in WOMAC pain subscore (F ratio = 4.84, df = 45, P = 0.032). Both modes of strength training were well tolerated.

conclusionsBoth resistance training types effectively increased leg strength. Knee flexion and knee extension muscle strength can modify function and pain symptoms irrespective of muscle contraction type. Which mode to pick could be determined by preference, goals, tolerance to the contraction type, and equipment availability.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overBody CompositionBody Mass IndexExercise TherapyFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansKneeLegMaleMiddle AgedMuscle StrengthOsteoarthritis, KneePatient ComplianceResistance Training

Identifiers

PMID31033900
PMCPMC6746593
OpenAlexW2941636906

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.