Table 5.
Comparison of observed effects of usual exercise therapy for each subgroup with hypothesized effects (research question 3; findings resulting in accepted hypotheses in bold)
| Low muscle strength subgroup | Obesity subgroup | High muscle strength subgroup | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Observed | Hypothesized | Observed | Hypothesized | Observed | Hypothesized | |
| Knee pain | ||||||
| Effect size1 | 1.05 | 0.8 ± 0.2 | 1.10 | 0.5 ± 0.2 | 0.82 | 0.2 ± 0.2 |
| % persons with MIC2 | 70% | > 67% | 72% | 33–67% | 66% | < 33% |
| Physical function | ||||||
| Effect size1 | 0.79 | 0.8 ± 0.2 | 0.78 | 0.5 ± 0.2 | 0.49 | 0.2 ± 0.2 |
| % persons with MIC3 | 79% | > 67% | 76% | 33–67% | 76% | < 33% |
| Quad. strength / 30s-CST | ||||||
| Effect size1 | 0.74/ 0.73 | 0.8 ± 0.2 | 0.27/ 0.60 | 0.5 ± 0.2 | 0.19/ 0.32 | 0.2 ± 0.2 |
| % persons with MIC4,5 | 49% / 31% | > 67% | 32% / 28% | 33–67% | 7% / 9% | < 33% |
MIC = minimal important change. 1 Effect size (within-group) = change score within group / standard deviation at baseline; 2 MIC defined as improvement on NRS/VAS pain (0–100) ≥ 15% and/or ≥ 1 point [25]; 3MIC defined as improvement on WOMAC physical function (0–100) ≥ 12% [26]; 4 MIC defined as improvement on quadriceps strength ≥30% [27]; 5 MIC defined as improvement on 30s-CST ≥ 2 repetitions [28]