Luis Cabrera-Durán
Current Organizations / Institutes
The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article
Research Subjects
Research Interests
Luis Cabrera-Durán has a total of 5 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:
- Carlos Donato Cabrera-López
Departamento de Fisioterapia, Centro Superior de Estudios Universitarios La Salle, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Aravaca, 28023 Madrid, Spain
1 shared publication - Ignacio Canitrot-González
Departamento de Fisioterapia, Centro Superior de Estudios Universitarios La Salle, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, 28023 Madrid, Spain
1 shared publication - Javier Palomares-Fernández
Departamento de Fisioterapia, Centro Superior de Estudios Universitarios La Salle, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, 28023 Madrid, Spain
1 shared publication - José Fierro-Marrero
Physical Activity and Health Research Group (AFYS), Faculty of Health Sciences Rey Juan Carlos University Alcorcón Madrid Spain
1 shared publication - Paride Crisafulli
Affiliation IFISC, Instituto de Fisica Interdisciplinar y Sistemas Complejos (CSIC-UIB), Campus Universitat de les Illes Balears, Palma, Mallorca, Spain
1 shared publication
Latest Publications
- Open Access
- 11 February 2026
- Published by MDPI AG in Healthcare
- Vol. 14 (4) , 451
How Intense Is Effective? Exploring Aerobic Exercise Intensity for Knee Osteoarthritis Through a Bayesian NetworkMeta-Analysis
Introduction: Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) is characterized by pain, stiffness, and functional limitation. Aerobic exercise (AE) is a key treatment with proven benefits. Aims: To determine the most effective AE intensity for KOA. Methods: Searches were performed in seven databases, including randomized controlled trials with AE-only groups. Outcomes assessed were pain, walking and sit-to-stand performance, stiffness, and disability. Methodological quality and bias were evaluated. Bayesian random-effects network meta-analyses compared AE intensities, reporting standardized mean differences (Hedges’ g) with 95% credible intervals. Certainty of evidence was rated using GRADE. Results: Fifteen studies were included (mean PEDro score: 5.93), showing “some concerns” or “high risk” of bias. Two meta-analyses (pain and walking performance) were conducted. Comparisons between AE intensities showed non-significant, imprecise results with very low certainty of evidence. Conclusions: Evidence is insufficient to identify the optimal AE intensity for KOA. Limitations include high risk of bias, wide credible intervals, and reliance on indirect comparisons. In this context, clinicians should apply a structured, patient-centered approach to AE prescription, considering gradual progression and monitoring of tolerance, and combine AE with other recommended interventions. High-quality trials with direct comparisons of AE intensity should be conducted for this inconclusive gap.
- 11 February 2026
- Published by MDPI AG in Healthcare
- Vol. 14 (4) , 451
Open AccessHow Intense Is Effective? Exploring Aerobic Exercise Intensity for Knee Osteoarthritis Through a Bayesian NetworkMeta-Analysis
Introduction: Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) is characterized by pain, stiffness, and functional limitation. Aerobic exercise (AE) is a key treatment with proven benefits. Aims: To determine the most effective AE intensity for KOA. Methods: Searches were performed in seven databases, including randomized controlled trials with AE-only groups. Outcomes assessed were pain, walking and sit-to-stand performance, stiffness, and disability. Methodological quality and bias were evaluated. Bayesian random-effects network meta-analyses compared AE intensities, reporting standardized mean differences (Hedges’ g) with 95% credible intervals. Certainty of evidence was rated using GRADE. Results: Fifteen studies were included (mean PEDro score: 5.93), showing “some concerns” or “high risk” of bias. Two meta-analyses (pain and walking performance) were conducted. Comparisons between AE intensities showed non-significant, imprecise results with very low certainty of evidence. Conclusions: Evidence is insufficient to identify the optimal AE intensity for KOA. Limitations include high risk of bias, wide credible intervals, and reliance on indirect comparisons. In this context, clinicians should apply a structured, patient-centered approach to AE prescription, considering gradual progression and monitoring of tolerance, and combine AE with other recommended interventions. High-quality trials with direct comparisons of AE intensity should be conducted for this inconclusive gap.