4.6 Review

Exercise for osteoarthritis of the knee: a Cochrane systematic review

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE
卷 49, 期 24, 页码 -

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bjsports-2015-095424

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To determine whether land-based therapeutic exercise is beneficial for people with knee osteoarthritis (OA) in terms of reduced joint pain or improved physical function and quality of life. Methods Five electronic databases were searched, up until May 2013. Randomised clinical trials comparing some form of land-based therapeutic exercise with a non-exercise control were selected. Three teams of two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias for each study. Standardised mean differences immediately after treatment and 2-6 months after cessation of formal treatment were separately pooled using a random effects model. Results In total, 54 studies were identified. Overall, 19 (35%) studies reported adequate random sequence generation, allocation concealment and adequately accounted for incomplete outcome data. However, research results may be vulnerable to selection, attrition and detection bias. Pooled results from 44 trials indicated that exercise significantly reduced pain (12 points/100; 95% CI 10 to 15) and improved physical function (10 points/100; 95% CI 8 to 13) to a moderate degree immediately after treatment, while evidence from 13 studies revealed that exercise significantly improved quality of life immediately after treatment with small effect (4 points/100; 95% CI 2 to 5). In addition, 12 studies provided 2-month to 6-month post-treatment sustainability data which showed significantly reduced knee pain (6 points/100; 95% CI 3 to 9) and 10 studies which showed improved physical function (3 points/100; 95% CI 1 to 5). Conclusions Among people with knee osteoarthritis, land-based therapeutic exercise provides short-term benefit that is sustained for at least 2-6 months after cessation of formal treatment.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据