↓ Skip to main content

Variability in effect sizes of exercise therapy for knee osteoarthritis depending on comparator interventions

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Physical & Rehabilitation Medicine, November 2022
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#34 of 740)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
39 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Variability in effect sizes of exercise therapy for knee osteoarthritis depending on comparator interventions
Published in
Annals of Physical & Rehabilitation Medicine, November 2022
DOI 10.1016/j.rehab.2022.101708
Pubmed ID
Authors

Julie Rønne Pedersen, Dilara Merve Sari, Carsten Bogh Juhl, Jonas Bloch Thorlund, Søren T Skou, Ewa M Roos, Alessio Bricca

Abstract

Systematic reviews of exercise therapy for knee osteoarthritis (OA) have largely ignored the variability in comparator interventions. To assess how effect estimates of exercise therapy for knee OA as reported in randomized controlled trials vary depending on the comparator interventions. We followed the Cochrane Handbook and PRISMA guidance to conduct and report this meta-epidemiological study. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were identified from systematic reviews published in 2015 or later and reference lists of included studies. Exercise therapy RCTs testing interventions that adhered to the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) guidelines compared to any comparator intervention in people with knee OA and reporting outcomes of knee pain, physical function and/or quadriceps strength at the end of intervention were included. Thirty-five RCTs with 2412 participants were included. Comparator interventions included no intervention, non-ACSM compliant exercise therapy, education/self-management, and passive modalities. For pain, standardized mean difference (SMD) for ACSM compliant exercise therapy compared to passive modalities was 1.76 (95% CI 0.49, 3.04), no intervention 0.93 (95% CI 0.50; 1.36), education/self-management 0.27 (95% CI 0.07, 0.47), and non-ACSM compliant exercise therapy 0.09 (95% CI -0.06, 0.23). For physical function, SMD for ACSM compliant exercise therapy compared to passive modalities was 1.29 (95% CI 0.41, 2.17), no intervention 0.76 (95% CI 0.15, 1.36), non-ACSM compliant exercise therapy 0.25 (95% CI -0.00, 0.51) and education/self-management 0.21 (95% CI -0.14, 0.55). For quadriceps strength, SMD for ACSM compliant exercise therapy compared to no intervention was 0.69 (95% CI 0.42, 0.96), non-ACSM compliant exercise therapy 0.23 (95% CI -0.01, 0.46), education/self-management -0.02 (95% CI -0.45, 0.42) and passive modalities 0.80 (95% CI -0.10, 1.71). The effect of exercise therapy for knee OA varies significantly depending on the comparator intervention. This variability should be assessed routinely in systematic reviews.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 39 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 22 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 4 18%
Student > Master 2 9%
Researcher 2 9%
Professor 1 5%
Librarian 1 5%
Other 2 9%
Unknown 10 45%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 9%
Unspecified 1 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 5%
Sports and Recreations 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 11 50%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. 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 04 May 2023.
All research outputs
#1,714,215
of 26,314,361 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Physical & Rehabilitation Medicine
#34
of 740 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,029
of 502,448 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Physical & Rehabilitation Medicine
#2
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,314,361 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 740 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 502,448 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.