Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37312983›Full record

ArticleArchives of rehabilitation research and clinical translation2023

Improving the Effectiveness of Exercise Therapy for Adults With Knee Osteoarthritis: A Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial (BEEP Trial).

Nadine E Foster, Elaine Nicholls, Melanie A Holden, Emma L Healey, Elaine M Hay, BEEP trial team

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Archives of rehabilitation research and clinical translation, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Exercise for osteoarthritis of the knee.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

6 authors.

Nadine E FosterSTARS Education and Research Alliance, Surgical Treatment and Rehabilitation Service, The University of Queensland and Metro North Health, Brisbane, Australia.
Elaine NichollsPrimary Care Centre Versus Arthritis, School of Medicine, Keele University, Keele, UK.
Melanie A HoldenPrimary Care Centre Versus Arthritis, School of Medicine, Keele University, Keele, UK.
Emma L HealeyPrimary Care Centre Versus Arthritis, School of Medicine, Keele University, Keele, UK.
Elaine M HayPrimary Care Centre Versus Arthritis, School of Medicine, Keele University, Keele, UK.
BEEP trial team

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: To investigate whether knee osteoarthritis (OA) related pain and function can be improved by offering enhanced physical therapist-led exercise interventions. Design: Three-arm prospectively designed pragmatic randomized controlled trial. Setting: General practices and National Health Service physical therapy services in England. Participants: 514 adults (252 men, 262 women) aged ≥45 years with a clinical diagnosis of knee osteoarthritis (N=514). Mean Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) scores at baseline were 8.4 for pain and 28.1 for function. Interventions: Participants were individually randomized (1:1:1 allocation) to usual physical therapy care (UC control: up to 4 sessions of advice and exercise over 12 weeks), individually tailored exercise (ITE: individualized, supervised, and progressed lower limb exercises, 6-8 sessions over 12 weeks), or targeted exercise adherence (TEA: transitioning from lower limb exercise to general physical activity, 8-10 contacts over 6 months). Main Outcome Measures: Primary outcomes were pain and physical function measured by the WOMAC at 6 months. Secondary outcomes were measured at 3, 6, 9, 18, and 36 months. Results: Participants receiving UC, ITE, and TEA all experienced moderate improvement in pain and function. There were no significant differences between groups at 6 months (adjusted mean differences (95% confidence intervals): pain UC vs ITE, -0.3 (-1.0 to 0.4), UC vs TEA, -0.3 (-1.0 to 0.4); function UC vs ITE, 0.5 (-1.9 to 2.9), UC vs TEA, -0.9 (-3.3 to 1.5)), or any other time-point. Conclusions: Patients receiving UC experienced moderate improvement in pain and function; however, ITE and TEA did not lead to superior outcomes. Other strategies for patients with knee osteoarthritis to enhance the benefits of exercise-based physical therapy are needed.

Indexed as

ExerciseFunctionKneeOsteoarthritisPainRandomized controlled trialRehabilitation

Identifiers

PMID37312983
PMCPMC10258382

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.