Physical therapy vs internet-based exercise training for patients with knee osteoarthritis: results of a randomized controlled trial.
Physical therapy vs internet-based exercise training for patients with knee osteoarthritis: results of a randomized controlled trial.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.joca.2017.12.008
复制
发表时间：
2018-03
影响因子：
7
通讯作者：
Schwartz TA
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Allen KD;Arbeeva L;Callahan LF;Golightly YM;Goode AP;Heiderscheit BC;Huffman KM;Severson HH;Schwartz TA
比较物理治疗（PT，循证方法）和基于互联网的运动训练（IBET）在膝关节骨关节炎（OA）患者中的有效性，每种方法均与等待列表（WL）对照。350例症状性膝关节OA受试者的随机对照试验，分别以2：2：1的比例分配至标准PT、IBET和WL对照组。PT组在4个月内接受了多达8次单独访视。IBET计划提供量身定制的练习，视频演示和进展指导。主要结局是在基线、4个月（主要时间点）和12个月时评估的西安大略和麦克马斯特大学骨关节炎指数（WOMAC，范围0 [无问题]-96 [极端问题]）。一般线性混合效应模型比较了研究组间WOMAC的变化，优效性假设检验了每个干预组与WL之间的差异，非劣效性假设比较了IBET与PT。在4个月时，IBET或PT组与WL组相比，WOMAC评分的改善无显著差异（IBET：−2.70，95%置信区间（CI）= −6.24，0.85，P = 0.14; PT：−3.36，95%（CI）= −6.84，0.12，P = 0.06）。同样，12个月时，两组与WL相比的平均差异无统计学显著性（IBET：−2.63，95% CI = −6.37，1.11，P = 0.17; PT：−1.59，95% CI = −5.26，2.08，P = 0.39）。在两个时间点，IBET均非劣效于PT。IBET和PT后WOMAC评分的改善与WL组无显著差异。需要进一步的研究来检查策略，以最大限度地提高膝关节OA患者基于运动的干预措施的益处。NCT02312713。
To compare the effectiveness of physical therapy (PT, evidence-based approach) and internet-based exercise training (IBET), each vs a wait list (WL) control, among individuals with knee osteoarthritis (OA). Randomized controlled trial of 350 participants with symptomatic knee OA, allocated to standard PT, IBET and WL control in a 2:2:1 ratio, respectively. The PT group received up to eight individual visits within 4 months. The IBET program provided tailored exercises, video demonstrations, and guidance on progression. The primary outcome was the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC, range 0 [no problems]–96 [extreme problems]), assessed at baseline, 4 months (primary time point) and 12 months. General linear mixed effects modeling compared changes in WOMAC among study groups, with superiority hypotheses testing differences between each intervention group and WL and non-inferiority hypotheses comparing IBET with PT. At 4-months, improvements in WOMAC score did not differ significantly for either the IBET or PT group compared with WL (IBET: −2.70, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) = −6.24, 0.85, P = 0.14; PT: −3.36, 95% (CI) = −6.84, 0.12, P = 0.06). Similarly, at 12-months mean differences compared to WL were not statistically significant for either group (IBET: −2.63, 95% CI = −6.37, 1.11, P = 0.17; PT: −1.59, 95% CI = −5.26, 2.08, P = 0.39). IBET was non-inferior to PT at both time points. Improvements in WOMAC score following IBET and PT did not differ significantly from the WL group. Additional research is needed to examine strategies for maximizing benefits of exercise-based interventions for patients with knee OA. NCT02312713.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
2.3
作者：
Brooks, M. Alison;Beaulieu, John E.;Heiderscheit, Bryan C.
通讯作者：
Heiderscheit, Bryan C.
影响因子：
2.3
作者：
Allen KD;Bosworth HB;Chatterjee R;Coffman CJ;Corsino L;Jeffreys AS;Oddone EZ;Stanwyck C;Yancy WS Jr;Dolor RJ
通讯作者：
Dolor RJ
DOI：
10.1016/0197-2456(82)90024-1
发表时间：
1982-01-01
期刊：
CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIALS
影响因子：
--
作者：
BLACKWELDER, WC
通讯作者：
BLACKWELDER, WC
影响因子：
3.4
作者：
Fontaine, KR;Heo, M
通讯作者：
Heo, M
影响因子：
7.4
作者：
Bossen, Daniel;Veenhof, Cindy;De Bakker, Dinny H.
通讯作者：
De Bakker, Dinny H.