↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Aquatic exercise for the treatment of knee and hip osteoarthritis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
policy
3 policy sources
twitter
132 X users
facebook
12 Facebook pages
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
2 Google+ users
video
2 YouTube creators

Citations

dimensions_citation
209 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
1002 Mendeley
Title
Aquatic exercise for the treatment of knee and hip osteoarthritis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd005523.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Else Marie Bartels, Carsten B Juhl, Robin Christensen, Kåre Birger Hagen, Bente Danneskiold‐Samsøe, Hanne Dagfinrud, Hans Lund

Abstract

Osteoarthritis is a chronic disease characterized by joint pain, tenderness, and limitation of movement. At present, no cure is available. Thus only treatment of the person's symptoms and treatment to prevent further development of the disease are possible. Clinical trials indicate that aquatic exercise may have advantages for people with osteoarthritis. This is an update of a published Cochrane review. To evaluate the effects of aquatic exercise for people with knee or hip osteoarthritis, or both, compared to no intervention. We searched the following databases up to 28 April 2015: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; the Cochrane Library Issue 1, 2014), MEDLINE (from 1949), EMBASE (from 1980), CINAHL (from 1982), PEDro (Physiotherapy Evidence Database), and Web of Science (from 1945). There was no language restriction. Randomized controlled clinical trials of aquatic exercise compared to a control group (e.g. usual care, education, social attention, telephone call, waiting list for surgery) of participants with knee or hip osteoarthritis. Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of the included trials. We analysed the pooled results using standardized mean difference (SMD) values. Nine new trials met the inclusion criteria and we excluded two earlier included trials. Thus the number of participants increased from 800 to 1190 and the number of included trials increased from six to 13. Most participants were female (75%), with an average age of 68 years and a body mass index (BMI) of 29.4. Osteoarthritis duration was 6.7 years, with a great variation of the included participants. The mean aquatic exercise duration was 12 weeks. We found 12 trials at low to unclear risk of bias for all domains except blinding of participants and personnel. They showed that aquatic exercise caused a small short term improvement compared to control in pain (SMD -0.31, 95% CI -0.47 to -0.15; 12 trials, 1076 participants) and disability (SMD -0.32, 95% CI -0.47 to -0.17; 12 trials, 1059 participants). Ten trials showed a small effect on quality of life (QoL) (SMD -0.25, 95% CI -0.49 to -0.01; 10 trials, 971 participants). These effects on pain and disability correspond to a five point lower (95% CI three to eight points lower) score on mean pain and mean disability compared to the control group (scale 0 to 100), and a seven point higher (95% CI 0 to 13 points higher) score on mean QoL compared with control group (scale 0 to 100). No included trials performed a radiographic evaluation. No serious adverse events were reported in the included trials with relation to aquatic exercise. There is moderate quality evidence that aquatic exercise may have small, short-term, and clinically relevant effects on patient-reported pain, disability, and QoL in people with knee and hip OA. The conclusions of this review update does not change those of the previous published version of this Cochrane review.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 132 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 1,002 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 2 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 996 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 188 19%
Student > Master 117 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 58 6%
Unspecified 54 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 49 5%
Other 184 18%
Unknown 352 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 199 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 193 19%
Sports and Recreations 55 5%
Unspecified 54 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 22 2%
Other 117 12%
Unknown 362 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 121. 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 13 February 2024.
All research outputs
#343,963
of 25,382,035 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#581
of 12,596 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,221
of 313,563 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#14
of 246 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,035 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,596 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 36.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its peers.
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 313,563 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 246 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.