In five studies the control group received no intervention, whereas in six studies the control group was given education, and in one study therapeutic ultrasound ( Deyle 2000). In five of the twelve studies both weight bearing and non-weight bearing strength exercise programs were chosen, while five studies only used nonweight bearing and two only weight bearing strength exercises. See Table 3 for a selleck chemicals llc description of the main aspects of the studies. Outcome measures: Most studies used the WOMAC to analyse the effects on pain and function. Effect sizes

could not be calculated for four studies, because standard deviations were missing ( Ettinger et al 1997, Maurer et al 1999), total WOMAC scores R428 order (instead of the pain and function subscale scores) were presented ( Deyle et al 2000), or the results pertained to a mixed group of patients suffering from either hip or knee osteoarthritis ( van Baar et al 1998). In the review by Fransen and McConnell (2008), the effect sizes for these four studies were calculated with the help of externally provided data. We used these effect sizes on the assumption that these data had been correctly calculated. We could not retrieve and analyse separate results for patients with knee and hip osteoarthritis from one study ( Hughes et al 2006). Generally, effects for knee and hip osteoarthritis

have been found to be the same ( Jansen et al 2010, van Baar et al 1998), so we used the results for the total group, assuming comparable effect sizes. Finally, for the study by Fransen and colleagues (2001), we assumed that the change between baseline and Week 8 was the same for the two intervention groups. The 16-week results could not be used, since these include control participants that were randomised to the two intervention groups after Week 8. Pain: Figure 2 presents the results for pain. The effect size on pain was 0.38 (95% CI 0.23 to 0.54) for strength training, 0.34 (95% CI 0.19 to 0.49) for exercise therapy,

and 0.69 (95% CI 0.42 to 0.96) for exercise therapy plus manual mobilisation. On the meta-regression, Ketanserin only the difference between exercise therapy and exercise therapy with additional manual mobilisation was significant (p = 0.03), although the difference between strength training and exercise therapy with additional manual mobilisation was close to being significant (p = 0.06). Physical function: The effect size on physical function was 0.41 (95% CI 0.17 to 0.66) for strength training, 0.25 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.48) for exercise and 0.43 (95% CI 0.05 to 0.81) for exercise therapy with additional manual mobilisations (see Figure 3). With meta-regression, no significant differences were found between the effect sizes of the different interventions with respect to physical functioning. Generally, the effect sizes for function tended to be smaller than those for pain (see Figure 4).