↓ Skip to main content

Relative efficacy of different types of exercise for treatment of knee and hip osteoarthritis: protocol for network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
117 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
Relative efficacy of different types of exercise for treatment of knee and hip osteoarthritis: protocol for network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
Published in
Systematic Reviews, September 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13643-016-0321-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Siew-Li Goh, Monica S. M. Persson, Archan Bhattacharya, Michelle Hall, Michael Doherty, Weiya Zhang

Abstract

'Exercise' is universally recommended as a core treatment for knee and hip osteoarthritis (OA). However, there are very few head-to-head comparative trials to determine the relative efficacy between different types of exercise. The aim of this study is to benchmark different types of exercises against each other through the use of a common comparator in a network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). This study will include only RCTs published in peer-reviewed journals. A systematic search will be conducted in several electronic databases and other relevant online resources. No limitations are imposed on language or publication date. Participants must be explicitly identified by authors as having OA. Interventions that involved exercise or comparators in any form will be included. Pain is the primary outcome of interest; secondary outcomes will include function and quality of life measures. Quality assessment of studies will be based on the modified Cochrane's risk of bias assessment tool. At least two investigators will be involved throughout all stages of screening and data acquisition. Conflicts will be resolved through discussion. Conventional meta-analysis will be performed based on random effects model and network meta-analysis on a Bayesian model. Subgroup analysis will also be conducted based on study, patient and disease characteristics. This study will provide for the first time comprehensive research evidence for the relative efficacy of different exercise regimens for treatment of OA. We will use network meta-analysis of existing RCT data to answer this question. PROSPERO CRD42016033865.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 117 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Malaysia 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 115 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 16%
Student > Bachelor 15 13%
Student > Postgraduate 12 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 9%
Researcher 9 8%
Other 14 12%
Unknown 38 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 32 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 22 19%
Sports and Recreations 5 4%
Engineering 3 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Other 11 9%
Unknown 42 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 31 January 2018.
All research outputs
#13,478,254
of 22,886,568 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,423
of 2,001 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#180,250
of 337,011 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#22
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,886,568 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,001 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.7. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 337,011 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.