↓ Skip to main content

Physical therapy vs. internet-based exercise training (PATH-IN) for patients with knee osteoarthritis: study protocol of a randomized controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
297 Mendeley
Title
Physical therapy vs. internet-based exercise training (PATH-IN) for patients with knee osteoarthritis: study protocol of a randomized controlled trial
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, September 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12891-015-0725-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Quinn I. Williams, Alexander H. Gunn, John E. Beaulieu, Bernadette C. Benas, Bruce Buley, Leigh F. Callahan, John Cantrell, Andrew P. Genova, Yvonne M. Golightly, Adam P. Goode, Christopher I. Gridley, Michael T. Gross, Bryan C. Heiderscheit, Carla H. Hill, Kim M. Huffman, Aaron Kline, Todd A. Schwartz, Kelli D. Allen

Abstract

Physical activity improves pain and function among individuals with knee osteoarthritis (OA), but most people with this condition are inactive. Physical therapists play a key role in helping people with knee OA to increase appropriate physical activity. However, health care access issues, financial constraints, and other factors impede some patients from receiving physical therapy (PT) for knee OA. A need exists to develop and evaluate other methods to provide physical activity instruction and support to people with knee OA. This study is examining the effectiveness of an internet-based exercise training (IBET) program designed for knee OA, designed by physical therapists and other clinicians. This is a randomized controlled trial of 350 participants with symptomatic knee OA, allocated to three groups: IBET, standard PT, and a wait list (WL) control group (in a 2:2:1 ratio, respectively). The study was funded by the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute, which conducted a peer review of the proposal. The IBET program provides patients with a tailored exercise program (based on functional level, symptoms, and current activity), video demonstrations of exercises, and guidance for appropriate exercise progression. The PT group receives up to 8 individual visits with a physical therapist, mirroring standard practice for knee OA and with an emphasis on a home exercise program. Outcomes are assessed at baseline, 4 months (primary time point) and 12 months (to assess maintenance of treatment effects). The primary outcome is the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, and secondary outcomes include objective physical function, satisfaction with physical function, physical activity, depressive symptoms and global assessment of change. Linear mixed models will be used to compare both the IBET and standard PT groups to the WL control group, examine whether IBET is non-inferior to PT (a treatment that has an established evidence base for knee OA), and explore whether participant characteristics are associated with differential effects of IBET and/or standard PT. This research is in compliance with the Helsinki Declaration and was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The IBET program could be disseminated widely at relatively low cost and could be an important resource for helping patients with knee OA to adopt and maintain appropriate physical activity. This trial will provide an important evaluation of the effectiveness of this IBET program for knee OA. NCT02312713.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 297 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
United Arab Emirates 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 293 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 50 17%
Student > Master 40 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 9%
Researcher 25 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 23 8%
Other 51 17%
Unknown 82 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 69 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 52 18%
Psychology 24 8%
Sports and Recreations 18 6%
Neuroscience 8 3%
Other 31 10%
Unknown 95 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 July 2016.
All research outputs
#7,410,599
of 22,829,683 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#1,515
of 4,043 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#91,900
of 274,283 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#39
of 88 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,829,683 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,043 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 274,283 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 88 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.