Meta-analysisTreatment: Exercise & MovementSystematic Reviews & Meta-analysesComorbidities & Related ConditionsClinical RelevanceDOI
4 min read
Jump to:

Patient-friendly summary

If you read nothing else

For knee and hip arthritis, exercise can moderately reduce pain and improve movement within about two months, but the benefit slowly fades over the following year unless you keep it up.

Bottom line

Exercise produces moderate short-term improvements in pain, function, and performance and a smaller benefit for quality of life in knee and hip osteoarthritis versus usual care, peaking around 2 months and diminishing to no better than usual care by 9 to 18 months.

Moderate evidence

Published

2019
7 years ago
Recent

Evidence hierarchy

Meta-analysis ◀ this study
Systematic Review
RCT
Cohort
Case-Control
Case Report
Expert Opinion

Study participants

6472 participants across 77 RCTsSubgroups defined as mean age <60 vs >=60 years (exact range not reported)Varied by trial; percentage female grouped as <60%, 60-80%, or >=80% (overall split not reported)

Adults with knee or hip osteoarthritis who had not undergone joint replacement surgery

Full research — for clinicians and curious readers

Study Summary

This systematic review and meta-analysis of 77 randomised controlled trials (6472 participants) compared exercise-only interventions with usual care in people with knee and hip osteoarthritis. At or near 8 weeks, exercise produced statistically significant moderate benefits for pain (effect size 0.56), function (0.50), and objective performance (0.46), and a smaller but significant benefit for quality of life (0.21). The effects appeared to peak around 2 months and then gradually declined, becoming no better than usual care by 9 to 18 months depending on the outcome. Study-level analyses suggested that younger participants, those with knee (rather than hip) OA, and those not awaiting joint replacement surgery tended to report greater pain relief, though the authors caution these determinants may reflect ecological bias and need confirmation with individual patient data.

72/100
Evidence StrengthStrong
Study Quality
Sample Size
Replication

Key Findings

Exercise gave a moderate, statistically significant benefit for pain versus usual care at ~8 weeksHigh

Effect size 0.56 (95% CI 0.44-0.68), which the authors classify as a moderate effect using Cohen's thresholds (0.2 small, 0.5 moderate, 0.8 large).

Function and objective performance also improved moderatelyHigh

Function effect size 0.50 (95% CI 0.38-0.63) and performance 0.46 (95% CI 0.35-0.57) at or nearest to 8 weeks.

Quality of life benefit was smaller but still significantMedium

Quality of life effect size 0.21 (95% CI 0.11-0.31); the benefit was not influenced by whether a generic or disease-specific instrument was used.

Benefits peaked around 2 months and then diminished over timeHigh

Across all outcomes effects appeared to peak around 2 months, then gradually decreased and became no better than usual care by 9 to 18 months depending on the outcome.

Greater pain relief was associated with younger age, knee OA, and not awaiting joint replacementMedium

On multivariate meta-regression (significance threshold P <= 0.10), younger age (mean <60 years), knee OA, and participants not on a waiting list for joint replacement remained significant determinants of better pain relief. These are study-level findings that may carry ecological bias.

Results were relatively robust in sensitivity analysesMedium

Restricting to more homogeneous RCTs (I-squared <30%) still showed significant benefits: pain 0.50 (0.43-0.58), function 0.43 (0.35-0.51), performance 0.32 (0.25-0.39), and QoL 0.18 (0.09-0.27).

Study Methodology
Study Design
Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (part of a project registered as PROSPERO CRD42016033865); random-effects pooling of between-group standardised mean differences, with subgroup analyses and uni/multivariate meta-regression for determinants
Sample Size
77 RCTs, 6472 participants
Duration
Primary endpoint at or nearest to 8 weeks; follow-up time points grouped from 1 month to >=18 months for time-dependent analysis
Population
Adults with knee or hip osteoarthritis who had not undergone knee or hip joint replacement surgery; exercise-only interventions versus usual care
Outcome Measures
Pain (primary outcome) · Self-reported function · Objective physical performance (gait/walking parameters prioritised; strength, power, range of motion otherwise) · Quality of life (QoL) · Effect size (standardised mean difference, Cohen's method) with 95% CI · Risk of bias (modified Cochrane tool)

Strengths

  • Large evidence base: 77 RCTs with 6472 participants, more studies and more outcomes than many previous meta-analyses
  • Searched 9 databases from inception to December 2017 with no language restriction
  • Included all types of exercise and standardised the comparator to usual care, isolating the exercise effect
  • Examined time-dependent effects across multiple follow-up intervals
  • Robustness checked with multiple sensitivity analyses (end-point vs change scores, imputed SDs, single index knee, translated publications, and removal of heterogeneous studies)

Limitations

  • Observational nature of meta-analysis; results depend on accuracy and completeness of the primary reports, with missing covariate data (e.g., mean age, sex distribution) limiting adjustment for multiple comparisons
  • Study-level (ecological) analyses mean the identified determinants may not hold at the individual-patient level and need confirmation with individual patient data
  • Generally poor quality of exercise trials: exercise cannot be blinded, and many trials had high risk of bias in randomisation, allocation concealment, reporting, and small sample size
  • Egger's test indicated a small study effect / publication bias for all outcomes except QoL
  • No unified definition of 'usual care' across trials and substantial heterogeneity between studies
  • A higher significance threshold (P <= 0.10) was used to avoid missing potential determinants, so the determinant findings are hypothesis-generating

Key Takeaways for Patients

What This Means for You

  1. 01For knee and hip osteoarthritis, exercise can meaningfully reduce pain and improve function, movement performance, and quality of life compared with no new treatment, with benefits typically seen within about 8 weeks.
  2. 02The gains tend to be strongest around 2 months and then slowly fade, so keeping up with exercise over the long term appears important to maintain benefit.
  3. 03People who are younger, have knee (rather than hip) osteoarthritis, and are not waiting for joint replacement surgery may get more pain relief from exercise, though this comes from study-level patterns and is not yet proven for individuals.
  4. 04Exercise is generally considered safe compared with medications and is recommended internationally as a core treatment for osteoarthritis.

Read the Full Paper

Access the complete peer-reviewed study from Annals of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine

View Full Study

Related Research

●●●●● LandmarkSystematic Review

Effectiveness of Percutaneous Needle Electrolysis (PNE) and Intramuscular Electrical Stimulation (IMES) in the Management of Myofascial Pain Syndrome and Tendinopathies: A Systematic Review

Trybulski et al.·Journal of Clinical Medicine·2026

This systematic review found that PNE and IMES may improve pain and function in myofascial pain syndrome and tendinopathies, but evidence quality was limited by high risk of bias. Both techniques appear safe with only minor, self-limiting adverse events.

Systematic Reviews & Meta-analysesRead →
●●●●● LandmarkSystematic Review

Dry Needling in Sports and Sport Recovery: A Systematic Review with an Evidence Gap Map

Kużdżał et al.·Sports Medicine·2025

This systematic review of 24 studies found dry needling effectively reduces pain in injured athletes but shows mixed results for performance enhancement in healthy athletes. Significant research gaps exist for elite athletes and long-term effects.

Systematic Reviews & Meta-analysesRead →
●●●●● LandmarkMeta-analysis

Treatments for enhancing sleep quality in fibromyalgia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Anna Pathak et al.·Rheumatology (Oxford)·2025

A meta-analysis of randomized trials in fibromyalgia found that CBT for insomnia moderately improved sleep quality, while most common drugs showed little to no benefit and pregabalin and sodium oxybate helped modestly but carried risks.

Comorbidities & Related ConditionsRead →
●●●●● LandmarkMeta-analysis

Comparative effectiveness of noninvasive therapeutic interventions for myofascial pain syndrome: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Liu et al.·International Journal of Surgery·2024

Network meta-analysis of 40 RCTs found manual therapy, laser therapy, and extracorporeal shock wave therapy most effective for reducing pain and disability in myofascial pain syndrome. These three treatments showed benefits across pain intensity, pressure pain threshold, and functional outcomes comp

Systematic Reviews & Meta-analysesRead →