Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33490835›Full record

ArticlePain reports

A pain science education and walking program to increase physical activity in people with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis: a feasibility study.

Tasha R Stanton, Emma L Karran, David S Butler, Melissa J Hull, Sarah N Schwetlik, Felicity A Braithwaite, Hannah G Jones, G Lorimer Moseley, Catherine L Hill, Christy Tomkins-Lane and 2 more

2 registry-linked trialsOpen access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Pain reports. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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.

NCT05698368 nacompletednot on this map

A Digital Mindset Intervention to Improve Pain and Exercise Participation in Individuals With Knee Osteoarthritis: A Randomized, Parallel-group Study

TypeinterventionalSponsorStanford UniversityRan2023 to 2023Enrolled458ConditionsKnee OsteoarthritisArmsMindset intervention, Active comparator
NCT05955430 naunknown statusnot on this map

Efficacy of Percutaneous Electrical Stimulation Compared to Transcutaneous Electrical Stimulation in Combination With an Education and Exercise Program in Patients With Knee Osteoarthritis

TypeinterventionalSponsorJosue Fernandez CarneroRan2023 to 2024Enrolled30ConditionsKnee OsteoarthritisArmsTherapeutic exercise, Pain education, Percutaneous electrical stimulation, Transcutaneous electrical stimulation, Placebo stimulation
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Pain science education concepts for pelvic pain: an e-Delphi of expert clinicians.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

12 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.

Tasha R StantonIIMPACT in Health, Allied Health and Human Performance, The University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Emma L KarranIIMPACT in Health, Allied Health and Human Performance, The University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
David S ButlerIIMPACT in Health, Allied Health and Human Performance, The University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Melissa J HullAlliance for Research in Exercise, Nutrition and Activity (ARENA), Allied Health and Human Performance, The University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Sarah N SchwetlikIIMPACT in Health, Allied Health and Human Performance, The University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Felicity A BraithwaiteIIMPACT in Health, Allied Health and Human Performance, The University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Hannah G JonesIIMPACT in Health, Allied Health and Human Performance, The University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
G Lorimer MoseleyIIMPACT in Health, Allied Health and Human Performance, The University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Catherine L HillRheumatology Department, The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Christy Tomkins-LaneDepartment of Health and Physical Education, Mount Royal University, Calgary, AB, Canada.
Carol MaherAlliance for Research in Exercise, Nutrition and Activity (ARENA), Allied Health and Human Performance, The University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Kim BennellCentre for Health, Exercise and Sports Medicine, Department of Physiotherapy, The University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
University of South Australia · AUNeuroscience Research Australia · AUMount Royal University · CAUniversity of Adelaide · AUUniversity of Bath · GBUniversity of Melbourne · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionNine of 10 people with knee osteoarthritis are inactive. Unhelpful pain beliefs may negatively influence physical activity levels. Targeting these unhelpful pain beliefs, through contemporary pain science education (PSE), may provide benefit.

objectivesTo evaluate the feasibility of conducting a clinical trial to determine the effect of adding PSE (vs adding sham ultrasound) to an individualised, physiotherapist-led education and walking program in people with painful knee osteoarthritis.

methodsTwenty participants were randomised (1:1) into the PSE group or Control group, each receiving 4 in-person weekly treatments, then 4 weeks of at-home activities (weekly telephone check-in). Clinical outcomes and physical activity (7 days of wrist-worn accelerometry) were assessed at baseline, 4 (clinical outcomes only), 8, and 26 weeks.

resultsMost feasibility criteria were met. On average, 7 adults/wk were eligible, with 70% recruited. Treatment compliance was high (in-person: 80% PSE; 100% Control; at-home: 78% PSE; 75% Control). Wrist-based accelerometry had >75% valid wear-time. Sufficient follow-up rates were not achieved (26 weeks: 65%). Participant and clinician feedback highlighted that PSE was too complex and did not match patient expectations of "physiotherapy", that sham ultrasound was problematic (clinician), but that both treatments had high credibility, acceptability, and usefulness.

conclusionsProgression to a full trial is warranted. Strategies to increase participant retention, refine the PSE content/delivery, and replace/remove the sham intervention are required.

Indexed as

OsteoarthritisPainPain science educationPhysical activitySham ultrasoundWalking program

Identifiers

PMID33490835
PMCPMC7808687
OpenAlexW3088148710

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.