Patients and Methods: Fifty-six patients were allocated into either the Rehabilitation Protocol Group (RPG) or the Control Group (CG) by a computer-generated random number. The patients in the RPG performed the strengthening exercises of the LLRP and followed the instruction of daily care (IDC). The patients in the CG only followed the IDC as a usual care. Gait Speed Test, quality of life, and BMI were taken at pre-test and post-test measurements. Paired samples t-test and two way mixed analysis of variance were used to analyze the change of BMI within and compare the difference of BMI between the groups, respectively. Wilcoxon signed ranked test and Mann-Whitney U-test were used to analyze the changes of quality of life and functional capacity within and compare the differences of quality of life and functional capacity between the groups, respectively.

Results: The patients in the RPG reported a significant reduction in BMI (p = 0.025), improvement in quality of life (p ≤ 0.001), and functional capacity (p ≤ 0.001) within group. The patients in the CG also reported a significant improvements in quality of life (p < 0.05). The improvement in quality of life score was greater in the patients with RPG than the CG (p = 0.053).

Conclusion: The progressive resistance strength training of LLRP is effective in terms of reducing BMI, improving quality of life and functional capacity.

METHODS: This study was a single-blind, RCT conducted at Teaching Bay of Rehmatul-Lil-Alameen Post Graduate Institute of Cardiology between February and November 2020. 114 knee OA patients who were overweight and obese were randomly divided by a computer-generated number into the rehabilitation group with mHealth (RGw-mHealth) to receive LLRP + instructions of daily care (IDC) combined with mHealth intervention, rehabilitation group without mHealth (RGwo-mHealth) to receive LLRP + IDC intervention and control group (CG) to receive IDC intervention. All three groups were also provided leaflets explaining about their intervention. The primary outcome measure was knee pain measured by the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index score. The secondary outcome measures were mobility measured by the Timed up and go (TUG) test, functional activity measured by the patient-specific functional scale (PSFS), and ADL measured by the Katz Index of independence in ADL scores.

PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between August 2019 and November 2020, a total of 96 patients (42 males, 54 females; mean age; 52.9±4.8 years; range, 40 to 60 years) were randomized into either the rehabilitation group with mobile health (RGw-mHealth) receiving reminders by using mHealth to carry on the strengthening exercises of LLRP and instructions of daily care (IDC), the rehabilitation group without mobile health (RGwo-mHealth) following the strengthening exercises of LLRP and instructions of daily care (IDC) and control group (CG) only following the IDC for duration of 12 weeks. The reminders for using mHealth were provided two times a day for three days a week. Primary outcome measures were QoL assessed by the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index summary score, and functional strength by five-repetition sit-to-stand test. Secondary outcome measure was functional capacity assessed by the Gait Speed Test. The assessments of QoL, functional strength, and functional capacity were taken at baseline and post-test after 12 weeks of intervention.

RESULTS: After 12 weeks of intervention, the patients in all three groups had a statistically significant improvement in QoL within groups (p<0.05). Patients in the RGw-mHealth and RGwo-mHealth had a statistically significant improvement in functional strength and walking gait speed within groups (p<0.05). The pairwise between-group comparisons (Bonferroni post-hoc test) of the mean changes in QoL, functional strength, and functional capacity at post-test assessments revealed that patients in the RGw-mHealth had a statistically significant greater mean change in QoL, functional strength and functional capacity relative to both the RGwo-mHealth and CG (p<0.001).

RESULTS: Participants in the RPG and CG reported a statistically significant reduction in knee pain and stiffness (p ≤ 0.05) within the group. The reduction in the scores of knee pain was higher in participants in the RPG than that in participants in the CG (p=0.001). Additionally, participants in the RPG reported greater satisfaction (p=0.001) and higher self-reported exercise adherence (p=0.010) and coordinator-reported exercise adherence (p=0.046) than the participants in the CG.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was an open-label randomized controlled trial of six weeks. Forty overweight and obese participants with knee OA were randomly divided into two groups by a computer-generated number. The participants in the Instruction Group (IG) were provided with leaflets explaining IDC for the duration of six weeks. Both groups were instructed to take low doses of the non-steroid anti-inflammatory drug (NSAIDs) on alternate days. The outcome measures were pain, mobility and BMI. The feasibility and acceptability of knee pain and mobility were assessed using a questionnaire designed by experts in rehabilitation.

RESULTS: Participants in the IG reported more statistically significant pain relief as assessed by the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index score (p=0.001) and improvement in mobility (p=0.000) assessed by the Timed Up and Go test score after six weeks compared to the Control Group (CG). Both groups did not demonstrate any significant change in BMI (p-value > 0.05). The results of descriptive statistics showed a significantly higher satisfaction score for participants who received a combination of IDC and NSAIDs, indicating an acceptable intervention.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: The patients were recruited from the urban community of Lahore, Pakistan. The patients were divided into the rehabilitation group (RG) and control group (CG). The patients in the RG performed the REs of lower limbs and followed the instructions of daily care (IDC), while the patients in the CG only followed the IDC for a 12 weeks period. Outcome measures were assessed at pre-test before grouping and post-test after 12-weeks of interventions. The measures included: weight, functional strength, and exercise adherence. The Paired Samples t-test (for normally distributed data) and the Wilcoxon Signed Ranked Test (for data that was not normally distributed) were used to analyze the differences within groups from pre to post-test measurements. The variance 2 × 2 factors and the Mann Whitney U-test were used to analyze the difference in weight and functional strength between the groups.

RESULTS: The patients in the RG reported a statistically significant weight reduction (p < 0.001) and improvement in the functional strength (p < 0.001) within a group. Similarly, the patients in the CG also reported a significant improvement in the scores of functional strength (p = 0.004) within a group. The improvement in the scores of functional strength was higher in the patients of RG than the CG (p < 0.001). Similarly, the patients in the RG reported a statistically significant reduction in weight than the CG (p < 0.001).