Scholarlink

<p>The results of the randomised controlled trial by Asgarimoghadam et al. (2026) on the use of Swedish massage and hip-strengthening exercises in older adults with knee osteoarthritis are quite informative regarding non-pharmacological management strategies. Although both interventions showed remarkable outcomes in alleviating pain and enhancing function and range of movement compared with the control, a few methodological issues should be considered. The lack of participant blinding with the use of subjective outcome measures is a potential risk of performance bias. Also, the sample size used is not very large, which raises doubts about the lack of statistical power to identify the differences between two active interventions contributing to an increased risk of a Type II error. The large screening-to-enrollment ratio also constrains the external validity of the results to more widespread clinical groups. The future research by addressing these limitations in prospective research with sound trial design, big sample size and enhanced external validity will go a long way to improve the evidence base associated with clinical decision-making in the geriatric rehabilitation field.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Comment on “swedish massage versus hip strengthening exercises for pain and function in older adults with knee osteoarthritis: a randomized controlled trial”

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年7月30日

查看全文
  • Sahil Kumar,
  • Sandeep Pattnaik

摘要

The results of the randomised controlled trial by Asgarimoghadam et al. (2026) on the use of Swedish massage and hip-strengthening exercises in older adults with knee osteoarthritis are quite informative regarding non-pharmacological management strategies. Although both interventions showed remarkable outcomes in alleviating pain and enhancing function and range of movement compared with the control, a few methodological issues should be considered. The lack of participant blinding with the use of subjective outcome measures is a potential risk of performance bias. Also, the sample size used is not very large, which raises doubts about the lack of statistical power to identify the differences between two active interventions contributing to an increased risk of a Type II error. The large screening-to-enrollment ratio also constrains the external validity of the results to more widespread clinical groups. The future research by addressing these limitations in prospective research with sound trial design, big sample size and enhanced external validity will go a long way to improve the evidence base associated with clinical decision-making in the geriatric rehabilitation field.