Trial reportOsteoarthritis and cartilage open2025
Pain informed movement compared to neuromuscular exercise and standard education in people with knee osteoarthritis: A pilot and feasibility randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Osteoarthritis and cartilage open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objective: To determine the feasibility of conducting a full-scale randomized controlled trial to test the effectiveness of pain informed movement (PIM) (includes mind-body techniques, neuromuscular strengthening exercises (NEMEX) and pain neuroscience education), compared to NEMEX and standard education in people with knee osteoarthritis (KOA). Methods: Adults ≥40 years with KOA were randomized to a twice weekly in-person group program for 8 weeks. Education was delivered through weekly videos. Recruitment, follow-up, adherence (attendance), compliance to home exercises, burden of procedures as well as patient-reported clinical outcomes, quantitative sensory tests, the sit to stand test, and serum levels of brain derived neurotrophic factor and nerve growth factor were assessed before and immediately after treatment. Focus groups were conducted post intervention. Results: 210 people were screened for eligibility. 69 (33 %) were randomized and 59 (28 PIM, 31 NEMEX; 86 %) completed the trial. The primary outcome of follow up rate was met along with all other a priori criteria. There was high acceptability of both interventions (≥86 %), and perceived low burden of procedures (≥80 %). Only minor adverse events were reported. Secondary outcomes improved across most clinical measures in both groups with the PIM group showing clinically important improvement in pain. Focus group feedback suggests the need to consider an alternative format to video delivery of the education content. Conclusion: This pilot RCT indicates that a full trial is feasible and warranted to test the effectiveness of PIM versus NEMEX and standard education with the potential to provide mechanistic insights based on nervous system modulation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.