↓ 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 (70th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
190 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
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.

Twitter Demographics

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

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 190 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Portugal 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
United Arab Emirates 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 185 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 32 17%
Student > Master 25 13%
Researcher 20 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 17 9%
Other 41 22%
Unknown 37 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 55 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 34 18%
Psychology 20 11%
Sports and Recreations 14 7%
Neuroscience 4 2%
Other 20 11%
Unknown 43 23%

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
#2,007,793
of 8,076,187 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#685
of 2,067 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#68,925
of 237,696 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#30
of 82 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,076,187 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,067 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 237,696 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 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 82 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 62% of its contemporaries.