Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40728103›Full record

ArticleACR open rheumatology2025

Gait Retraining to Reduce Tibial Acceleration Versus a Standard Walking Program for Reducing Knee Pain and Loading in Adults With Knee Osteoarthritis: A Randomized Feasibility Trial.

Khara A James, Patrick Corrigan, Chun-Hao Huang, Corey Lanois, Michael P LaValley, Irene S Davis, Joshua J Stefanik

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in ACR open rheumatology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

7 authors.

Khara A JamesNortheastern University and Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7269-8311
Patrick CorriganCleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio.
Chun-Hao HuangNortheastern University and Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts, and Georgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia.
Corey LanoisNortheastern University, Boston, Massachusetts.
Michael P LaValleyBoston University, Boston, Massachusetts.
Irene S DavisUniversity of South Florida, Tampa, Florida.
Joshua J StefanikNortheastern University, Boston, Massachusetts.

Funding

Research and Evaluation Support Core Unit (RESCU Core)P30AR072571 · NIAMS · BOSTON UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CAMPUS · PI Michael Paul Lavalley · 2019 to 2026
$6.9M
The Relation of Altered Pain Processing to Impact Loading and Response to a Gait Retraining Treatment in Knee OsteoarthritisK23AR070913 · NIAMS · UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE · PI STEFANIK, JOSHUA JON · 2017 to 2021
$828k
NIAMS NIH HHS K23 AR070913NIAMS NIH HHS K23AR070913NIAMS NIH HHS P30AR072571
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo assess the feasibility of a randomized controlled trial evaluating a gait retraining program to reduce peak tibial acceleration on knee pain and impact loading in adults with knee osteoarthritis.

methodsParticipants (n = 44) were randomized to a gait retraining or standard walking program. Walking duration increased from 10 to 30 minutes as feedback faded over eight sessions. Gait retraining participants received real-time biofeedback to reduce peak tibial acceleration by 20%. Feasibility criteria included rates of recruitment, enrollment, and retention and number of adverse events. Knee pain and overground impact loading were assessed at baseline and one week after the last treadmill session. Analysis of covariance models compared group differences in peak tibial acceleration, pain, and impact loading after the walking program, controlling for baseline values.

resultsMost feasibility criteria were met. From 2019 to 2023, 867 individuals were screened (~22 individuals per month), and 46 were enrolled and randomized (n = 23 per group). No adverse events were identified. Peak tibial acceleration reduced by 0.13g and 0.09g (gravitational equivalents) for the gait retraining and standard walking groups, respectively. Greater reductions in pain were observed for the standard walking group compared to the gait retraining group. Changes in impact loading were not significant in either group. No between-group differences were observed for peak tibial acceleration, knee pain, or impact loading.

conclusionA full-scale randomized clinical trial is feasible with modification. However, gait retraining to reduce peak tibial acceleration was no more effective than a standard walking program for reducing knee pain and impact loading.

Identifiers

PMID40728103
PMCPMC12305460

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.