BACKGROUND: Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is a major public health issue causing chronic pain, impaired physical function, and reduced quality of life. As there is no cure, self-management of symptoms via exercise is recommended by all current international clinical guidelines. This review updates one published in 2015.
OBJECTIVES: We aimed to assess the effects of land-based exercise for people with knee osteoarthritis (OA) by comparing: 1) exercise versus attention control or placebo; 2) exercise versus no treatment, usual care, or limited education; 3) exercise added to another co-intervention versus the co-intervention alone.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and two trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov and World Health Organisation International Clinical Trials Registry Platform), together with reference lists, from the date of the last search (1st May 2013) until 4 January 2024, unrestricted by language.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated exercise for knee OA versus a comparator listed above. Our outcomes of interest were pain severity, physical function, quality of life, participant-reported treatment success, adverse events, and study withdrawals.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane for systematic reviews of interventions.
MAIN RESULTS: We included 139 trials (12,468 participants): 30 (3065 participants) compared exercise to attention control or placebo; 60 (4834 participants) compared exercise with usual care, no intervention or limited education; and 49 (4569 participants) evaluated exercise added to another intervention (e.g. weight loss diet, physical therapy, detailed education) versus that intervention alone. Interventions varied substantially in duration, ranging from 2 to 104 weeks. Most of the trials were at unclear or high risk of bias, in particular, performance bias (94% of trials), detection bias (94%), selective reporting bias (68%), selection bias (57%), and attrition bias (48%). Exercise versus attention control/placebo Compared with attention control/placebo, low-certainty evidence indicates exercise may result in a slight improvement in pain immediately post-intervention (mean 8.70 points better (on a scale of 0 to 100), 95% confidence interval (CI) 5.70 to 11.70; 28 studies, 2873 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence indicates exercise likely results in an improvement in physical function (mean 11.27 points better (on a scale of 0 to 100), 95% CI 7.64 to 15.09; 24 studies, 2536 participants), but little to no improvement in quality of life (mean 6.06 points better (on a scale of 0 to 100), 95% CI -0.13 to 12.26; 6 studies, 454 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence that exercise likely increases participant-reported treatment success (risk ratio (RR) 1.46, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.92; 2 studies 364 participants), and likely does not increase study withdrawals (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.26; 29 studies, 2907 participants). There was low-certainty evidence that exercise may not increase adverse events (RR 2.02, 95% CI 0.62 to 6.58; 11 studies, 1684 participants). Exercise versus no treatment/usual care/limited education Compared with no treatment/usual care/limited education, low-certainty evidence indicates exercise may result in an improvement in pain immediately post-intervention (mean 13.14 points better (on a scale of 0 to 100), 95% CI 10.36 to 15.91; 56 studies, 4184 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence indicates exercise likely results in an improvement in physical function (mean 12.53 points better (on a scale of 0 to 100), 95% CI 9.74 to 15.31; 54 studies, 4352 participants) and a slight improvement in quality of life (mean 5.37 points better (on a scale of to 100), 95% CI 3.19 to 7.54; 28 studies, 2328 participants). There was low-certainty evidence that exercise may result in no difference in participant-reported treatment success (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.71 to 2.49; 3 studies, 405 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence that exercise likely results in no difference in study withdrawals (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.20; 53 studies, 4408 participants). There was low-certainty evidence that exercise may increase adverse events (RR 3.17, 95% CI 1.17 to 8.57; 18 studies, 1557 participants). Exercise added to another co-intervention versus the co-intervention alone Moderate-certainty evidence indicates that exercise when added to a co-intervention likely results in improvements in pain immediately post-intervention compared to the co-intervention alone (mean 10.43 points better (on a scale of 0 to 100), 95% CI 8.06 to 12.79; 47 studies, 4441 participants). It also likely results in a slight improvement in physical function (mean 9.66 points better, 95% CI 7.48 to 11.97 (on a 0 to 100 scale); 44 studies, 4381 participants) and quality of life (mean 4.22 points better (on a 0 to 100 scale), 95% CI 1.36 to 7.07; 12 studies, 1660 participants) immediately post-intervention. There was moderate-certainty evidence that exercise likely increases participant-reported treatment success (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.18 to 2.24; 6 studies, 1139 participants), slightly reduces study withdrawals (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.97; 41 studies, 3502 participants), and slightly increases adverse events (RR 1.72, 95% CI 1.07 to 2.76; 19 studies, 2187 participants). Subgroup analysis and meta-regression We did not find any differences in effects between different types of exercise, and we found no relationship between changes in pain or physical function and the total number of exercise sessions prescribed or the ratio (between exercise group and comparator) of real-time consultations with a healthcare provider. Clinical significance of the findings To determine whether the results found would make a clinically meaningful difference to someone with knee OA, we compared our results to established 'minimal important difference' (MID) scores for pain (12 points on a 0 to 100 scale), physical function (13 points), and quality of life (15 points). We found that the confidence intervals of mean differences either did not reach these thresholds or included both a clinically important and clinically unimportant improvement.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found low- to moderate-certainty evidence that exercise probably results in an improvement in pain, physical function, and quality of life in the short-term. However, based on the thresholds for minimal important differences that we used, these benefits were of uncertain clinical importance. Participants in most trials were not blinded and were therefore aware of their treatment, and this may have contributed to reported improvements.
BACKGROUND: Land-based exercise therapy is recommended in clinical guidelines for hip or knee osteoarthritis. Adjunctive non-pharmacological therapies are commonly used alongside exercise in hip or knee osteoarthritis management, but cumulative evidence for adjuncts to land-based exercise therapy is lacking.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of adjunctive therapies used in addition to land-based exercise therapy compared with placebo adjunctive therapy added to land-based exercise therapy, or land-based exercise therapy only for people with hip or knee osteoarthritis.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, CINAHL, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) and clinical trials registries up to 10 June 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs of people with hip or knee osteoarthritis comparing adjunctive therapies alongside land-based exercise therapy (experimental group) versus placebo adjunctive therapies alongside land-based exercise therapy, or land-based exercise therapy (control groups). Exercise had to be identical in both groups. Major outcomes were pain, physical function, participant-reported global assessment, quality of life (QOL), radiographic joint structural changes, adverse events and withdrawals due to adverse events. We evaluated short-term (6 months), medium-term (6 to 12 months) and long-term (12 months onwards) effects.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence for major outcomes using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS: We included 62 trials (60 RCTs and 2 quasi-RCTs) totalling 6508 participants. One trial included people with hip osteoarthritis, one hip or knee osteoarthritis and 59 included people with knee osteoarthritis only. Thirty-six trials evaluated electrophysical agents, seven manual therapies, four acupuncture or dry needling, or taping, three psychological therapies, dietary interventions or whole body vibration, two spa or peloid therapy and one foot insoles. Twenty-one trials included a placebo adjunctive therapy. We presented the effects stratified by different adjunctive therapies along with the overall results. We judged most trials to be at risk of bias, including 55% at risk of selection bias, 74% at risk of performance bias and 79% at risk of detection bias. Adverse events were reported in eight (13%) trials. Comparing adjunctive therapies plus land-based exercise therapy against placebo therapies plus exercise up to six months (short-term), we found low-certainty evidence for reduced pain and function, which did not meet our prespecified threshold for a clinically important difference. Mean pain intensity was 5.4 in the placebo group on a 0 to 10 numerical pain rating scale (NPRS) (lower scores represent less pain), and 0.77 points lower (0.48 points better to 1.16 points better) in the adjunctive therapy and exercise therapy group; relative improvement 10% (6% to 15% better) (22 studies; 1428 participants). Mean physical function on the Western Ontario and McMaster (WOMAC) 0 to 68 physical function (lower scores represent better function) subscale was 32.5 points in the placebo group and reduced by 5.03 points (2.57 points better to 7.61 points better) in the adjunctive therapy and exercise therapy group; relative improvement 12% (6% better to 18% better) (20 studies; 1361 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence indicates that adjunctive therapies did not improve QOL (SF-36 0 to 100 scale, higher scores represent better QOL). Placebo group mean QOL was 81.8 points, and 0.75 points worse (4.80 points worse to 3.39 points better) in the placebo adjunctive therapy group; relative improvement 1% (7% worse to 5% better) (two trials; 82 participants). Low-certainty evidence (two trials; 340 participants) indicates adjunctive therapies plus exercise may not increase adverse events compared to placebo therapies plus exercise (31% versus 13%; risk ratio (RR) 2.41, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.27 to 21.90). Participant-reported global assessment was not measured in any studies. Compared with land-based exercise therapy, low-certainty evidence indicates that adjunctive electrophysical agents alongside exercise produced short-term (0 to 6 months) pain reduction of 0.41 points (0.17 points better to 0.63 points better); mean pain in the exercise-only group was 3.8 points and 0.41 points better in the adjunctive therapy plus exercise group (0 to 10 NPRS); relative improvement 7% (3% better to 11% better) (45 studies; 3322 participants). Mean physical function (0 to 68 WOMAC subscale) was 18.2 points in the exercise group and 2.83 points better (1.62 points better to 4.04 points better) in the adjunctive therapy plus exercise group; relative improvement 9% (5% better to 13% better) (45 studies; 3323 participants). These results are not clinically important. Mean QOL in the exercise group was 56.1 points and 1.04 points worse in the adjunctive therapies plus exercise therapy group (1.04 points worse to 3.12 points better); relative improvement 2% (2% worse to 5% better) (11 studies; 1483 participants), indicating no benefit (low-certainty evidence). Moderate-certainty evidence indicates that adjunctive therapies plus exercise probably result in a slight increase in participant-reported global assessment (short-term), with success reported by 45% in the exercise therapy group and 17% more individuals receiving adjunctive therapies and exercise (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.62) (5 studies; 840 participants). One study (156 participants) showed little difference in radiographic joint structural changes (0.25 mm less, 95% CI -0.32 to -0.18 mm); 12% relative improvement (6% better to 18% better). Low-certainty evidence (8 trials; 1542 participants) indicates that adjunctive therapies plus exercise may not increase adverse events compared with exercise only (8.6% versus 6.5%; RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.78 to 2.27).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Moderate- to low-certainty evidence showed no difference in pain, physical function or QOL between adjunctive therapies and placebo adjunctive therapies, or in pain, physical function, QOL or joint structural changes, compared to exercise only. Participant-reported global assessment was not reported for placebo comparisons, but there is probably a slight clinical benefit for adjunctive therapies plus exercise compared with exercise, based on a small number of studies. This may be explained by additional constructs captured in global measures compared with specific measures. Although results indicate no increased adverse events for adjunctive therapies used with exercise, these were poorly reported. Most studies evaluated short-term effects, with limited medium- or long-term evaluation. Due to a preponderance of knee osteoarthritis trials, we urge caution in extrapolating the findings to populations with hip osteoarthritis.
Background: There is increased interest in proprioceptive training for knee osteoarthritis (KOA). However, little consensus supports the effectiveness of this intervention. Objective: This meta-analysis aimed to assess the effects of proprioceptive training on symptoms, function, and proprioception in people with KOA. Methods: The PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and EMBASE databases were systematically searched from the inception dates to April 16, 2021 for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Data were pooled by calculating the standardized mean differences (SMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A random-effects model was used for the analyses. Results: A total of 24 RCTs involving 1,275 participants were included in our analysis. This study indicated that compared to no intervention, proprioceptive training significantly improved pain, stiffness, physical function, joint position sense (JPS), muscle strength, mobility, and knee ROM (P < 0.05) in people with KOA. When compared to other non-proprioceptive training, proprioceptive training provided better results in terms of JPS (SMD = -1.28, 95%CI: [-1.64, -0.92], I 2 = 0%, P < 0.00001) and mobility (timed walk over spongy surface) (SMD = -0.76, 95%CI: [-1.33, -0.18], I 2 = 64%, P = 0.01), and other results are similar. When proprioceptive training plus other non-proprioceptive training compared to other non-proprioceptive training, the two groups showed similar outcomes, but there was a greater improvement for JPS (SMD = -1.54, 95%CI: [-2.74, -0.34], I 2 = 79%, P = 0.01), physical function (SMD = -0.34, 95%CI: [-0.56, -0.12], I 2 = 0%, P = 0.003), and knee ROM (P < 0.05) in the proprioceptive training plus other non-proprioceptive training group. When proprioceptive training plus conventional physiotherapy compared against conventional physiotherapy, the two groups demonstrated similar outcomes, but there was a significant improvement for JPS (SMD = -0.95, 95%CI: [-1.73, -0.18], I 2 = 78%, P = 0.02) in the proprioceptive training plus conventional physiotherapy group. Conclusions: Proprioceptive training is safe and effective in treating KOA. There is some evidence that proprioceptive training combined with general non-proprioceptive training or conventional physiotherapy appears to be more effective and should be considered as part of the rehabilitation program. However, given that the majority of current studies investigated the short-term effect of these proprioceptive training programs, more large-scale and well-designed studies with long-term follow up are needed to determine the long-term effects of these proprioceptive training regimes in KOA. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/#recordDetails, PROSPERO, identifier: CRD42021240587.
BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis (OA) is not curable, but the symptoms can be managed through self-management programs (SMPs). Owing to the growing burden of OA on the health system and the need to ensure high-quality integrated services, delivering SMPs through digital technologies could be an economic and effective community-based approach.
OBJECTIVE: This study aims to analyze the effectiveness of digital-based structured SMPs on patient outcomes in people with OA.
METHODS: A total of 7 web-based and 3 gray literature databases were searched for randomized controlled trials assessing digital-based structured SMPs on self-reported outcomes including pain, physical function, disability, and health-related quality of life (QoL) in people with OA. Two reviewers independently screened the search results and reference lists of the identified papers and related reviews. Data on the intervention components and delivery and behavioral change techniques used were extracted. A meta-analysis, risk of bias sensitivity analysis, and subgroup analysis were performed where appropriate. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) approach was used to assess the quality of evidence.
RESULTS: A total of 8 studies were included in this review involving 2687 patients with knee (n=2); knee, hip, or both (n=5); and unspecified joint (n=1) OA. SMPs were delivered via telephone plus audio and video, internet, or mobile apps. Studies reported that digital-based structured SMPs compared with the treatment as usual control group (n=7) resulted in a significant, homogeneous, medium reduction in pain and improvement in physical function (standardized mean difference [SMD] -0.28, 95% CI -0.38 to -0.18 and SMD -0.26, 95% CI -0.35 to -0.16, respectively) at posttreatment. The digital-based structured SMP effect on pain and function reduced slightly at the 12-month follow-up but remained to be medium and significant. The posttreatment effect of digital-based structured SMPs was small and significant for disability, but nonsignificant for QoL (SMD -0.10, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.03 and SMD -0.17, 95% CI -0.47 to 0.14, respectively; each reported in 1 study only). The 12-month follow-up effect of the intervention was very small for disability and QoL. The quality of evidence was rated as moderate for pain and physical function and low and very low for disability and QoL, respectively, using the GRADE approach.
CONCLUSIONS: Digital-based structured SMPs may result in improvement in pain and physical function that is largely sustained at the 12-month follow-up in people with knee and hip OA. The effects on disability and QoL are smaller and less clear. The quality of evidence is moderate to low, and further research is required to confirm the findings of the review and assess the effects of digital-based structured SMPs on other health-related outcomes.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present systematic review and meta-analysis is to know, based on the available randomized controlled trials, if the non-surgical and non-pharmacological interventions commonly used for knee osteoarthritis (OA) patients are effective and which are the most effective ones.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: RCTs were identified through electronic databases respecting the following terms to guide the search strategy: PICO (Patients - Humans with knee OA; Intervention - Non-surgical and non-pharmacological interventions; Comparison - Pharmacological, surgical, placebo, no intervention, or other non-pharmacological/non-surgical interventions; Outcomes - Pain, physical function and patient global assessment). The methodological quality of the selected publications was evaluated using the PEDro and GRADE scales. Additionally, a meta-analysis was performed using the RevMan. Only studies with similar control group, population characteristics, outcomes, instruments and follow-up, were compared in each analysis.
RESULTS: Initially, 52 RCTs emerge however, after methodological analysis, only 39 had sufficient quality to be included. From those, only 5 studies meet the meta-analysis criteria. Exercise (especially resistance training) had the best positive effects on knee OA patients. Pulsed Electromagnetic Fields and Moxibustion showed to be the most promising interventions from the others. Balance Training, Diet, Diathermy, Hydrotherapy, High Level Laser Therapy, Interferential Current, Mudpack, Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation, Musculoskeletal Manipulations, Shock Wave Therapy, Focal Muscle Vibration, stood out, however more studies are needed to fully recommend their use. Other interventions did not show to be effective or the results obtained were heterogeneous.
CONCLUSIONS: Exercise is the best intervention for knee OA patients. Pulsed Electromagnetic Fields and Moxibustion showed to be the most promising interventions from the others options available.
Purpose. This systematic review and meta-Analysis was conducted to investigate the effects of various acutherapies on knee osteoarthritis (KOA) relief in the elderly. Methods. Five databases were accessed from inception to July 2017 for searching randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on acutherapy for KOA relief in the elderly. Data were pooled after trial quality assessment for meta-Analysis. Outcomes were the scores of knee pain, knee stiffness, and physical function accessed by Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) Index. Results. 17 RCTs including 4774 subjects were included. The results indicated that acutherapy significantly affected knee pain (standardized mean difference, i.e., SMD =-0.73, [95% CI,-0.98 to-0.47], P <0.001), knee stiffness (SMD =-0.66, [95%CI,-0.85 to-0.47], P <0.001), and physical function (SMD =-1.56, [95%CI,-2.17 to-0.95], P<0.001) when compared with control condition without intervention of any acutherapy. Moreover, acutherapy was more effective than corresponding sham (placebo) intervention applied on nonacupoints (SMD =-0.16, [95% CI,-0.32 to-0.01], P = 0.04). However, no significant differences were found on treatment effects between acutherapy and sham acutherapy at the same acupoints (SMD=-0.09, [95%CI,-0.40 to 0.21], P = 0.55). Conclusions. Acutherapy was an effective approach for KOA relief in the elderly. The selection of acupoints position could be a crucial factor that influences the treatment efficacy of acutherapy.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the impact of exercise therapy on molecular biomarkers related to cartilage and inflammation in people at risk of, or with established, knee osteoarthritis by conducting a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
METHODS: Literature search up to September 2017 in five major databases with no restriction on publication year or language. Data were extracted from the first available follow-up time point and we performed a narrative synthesis for the effect of exercise therapy on molecular biomarkers related to cartilage and inflammation. A subset of studies reporting sufficient data was combined in a meta-analysis, using an adjusted random effects model.
RESULTS: Twelve RCTs, involving 57 study comparisons at 4 to 24 weeks following an exercise therapy intervention were included. Exercise therapy decreased molecular biomarkers in 17 (30%) study comparisons, had no effect in 36 (63%), and increased molecular biomarkers in four (7%) study comparisons. Meta-analyses of nine biomarkers showed that exercise therapy was associated with non-significant reductions of C-reactive protein, C-terminal crosslinking telopeptide of type II collagen, tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α), soluble TNF-α receptor-1 and -2, C2C neoepitope of type II collagen and cartilage oligomeric matrix protein compared to non-exercising control groups and had no effect on interleukin-6 and soluble interleukin 6 receptor.
CONCLUSIONS: Exercise therapy is not harmful, as it does not increase the concentration of molecular biomarkers related to cartilage turnover and inflammation, implicated in osteoarthritis progression. The overall quality of evidence was downgraded to low because of the limited number of RCTs available. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
OBJECTIVES: To summarize all good quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) interventions in patients with rheumatic diseases.
METHODS: A systematic literature review guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) was performed. We excluded non-English language articles and abstract-only publications. Due to the large number of RCTs identified, we only include "good quality" RCTs with Jadad score of five.
RESULTS: We identified 60 good quality RCTs using CAM as intervention for patients with rheumatic diseases: acupuncture (9), Ayurvedic treatment (3), homeopathic treatment (3), electricity (2), natural products (31), megavitamin therapies (8), chiropractic or osteopathic manipulation (3), and energy healing therapy (1). The studies do not seem to suggest a particular type of CAM is effective for all types for rheumatic diseases. However, some CAM interventions appear to be more effective for certain types of rheumatic diseases. Acupuncture appears to be beneficial for osteoarthritis but not rheumatoid arthritis. For the other therapeutic modalities, the evidence base either contains too few trials or contains trials with contradictory findings which preclude any definitive summary. There were only minor adverse reactions observed for CAM interventions presented.
CONCLUSION: We identified 60 good quality RCTs which were heterogenous in terms of interventions, disease, measures used to assess outcomes, and efficacy of CAM interventions. Evidence indicates that some CAM therapies may be useful for rheumatic diseases, such as acupuncture for osteoarthritis. Further research with larger sample size is required for more conclusive evidence regarding efficacy of CAM interventions.
BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: Given conflicting findings, the purpose of this study was to use the meta-analytic approach to examine the effects of exercise (aerobic, strength training or both) on anxiety in adults with arthritis and other rheumatic diseases (AORD).
METHODS: Randomised controlled exercise intervention trials ≥4weeks in adults ≥18 years of age with osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis or fibromyalgia were included. Studies were located by searching eight electronic databases, cross-referencing and expert review. Dual selection and data abstraction of studies were performed. Hedge's standardised effect size (ES) was calculated for each result and pooled using the recently developed inverse heterogeneity model. Two-tailed
RESULTS: Of the 639 citations screened, 14 studies representing 926 initially enrolled participants (539 exercise, 387 control) met the criteria for inclusion. Length of training (mean±SD) averaged 15.8±6.7 weeks, frequency 3.3±1.3 times per week and duration 28.8±14.3 min per session. Overall, statistically significant reductions in anxiety were found (exercise minus control changes ES=-0.40, 95% CI -0.65 to -0.15, tau
CONCLUSIONS: Exercise is associated with reductions in anxiety among adults with selected types of AORD. However, a need exists for additional, well-designed, randomised controlled trials on this topic.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42016048728.
Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is a major public health issue causing chronic pain, impaired physical function, and reduced quality of life. As there is no cure, self-management of symptoms via exercise is recommended by all current international clinical guidelines. This review updates one published in 2015.
OBJECTIVES:
We aimed to assess the effects of land-based exercise for people with knee osteoarthritis (OA) by comparing: 1) exercise versus attention control or placebo; 2) exercise versus no treatment, usual care, or limited education; 3) exercise added to another co-intervention versus the co-intervention alone.
SEARCH METHODS:
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and two trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov and World Health Organisation International Clinical Trials Registry Platform), together with reference lists, from the date of the last search (1st May 2013) until 4 January 2024, unrestricted by language.
SELECTION CRITERIA:
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated exercise for knee OA versus a comparator listed above. Our outcomes of interest were pain severity, physical function, quality of life, participant-reported treatment success, adverse events, and study withdrawals.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:
We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane for systematic reviews of interventions.
MAIN RESULTS:
We included 139 trials (12,468 participants): 30 (3065 participants) compared exercise to attention control or placebo; 60 (4834 participants) compared exercise with usual care, no intervention or limited education; and 49 (4569 participants) evaluated exercise added to another intervention (e.g. weight loss diet, physical therapy, detailed education) versus that intervention alone. Interventions varied substantially in duration, ranging from 2 to 104 weeks. Most of the trials were at unclear or high risk of bias, in particular, performance bias (94% of trials), detection bias (94%), selective reporting bias (68%), selection bias (57%), and attrition bias (48%). Exercise versus attention control/placebo Compared with attention control/placebo, low-certainty evidence indicates exercise may result in a slight improvement in pain immediately post-intervention (mean 8.70 points better (on a scale of 0 to 100), 95% confidence interval (CI) 5.70 to 11.70; 28 studies, 2873 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence indicates exercise likely results in an improvement in physical function (mean 11.27 points better (on a scale of 0 to 100), 95% CI 7.64 to 15.09; 24 studies, 2536 participants), but little to no improvement in quality of life (mean 6.06 points better (on a scale of 0 to 100), 95% CI -0.13 to 12.26; 6 studies, 454 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence that exercise likely increases participant-reported treatment success (risk ratio (RR) 1.46, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.92; 2 studies 364 participants), and likely does not increase study withdrawals (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.26; 29 studies, 2907 participants). There was low-certainty evidence that exercise may not increase adverse events (RR 2.02, 95% CI 0.62 to 6.58; 11 studies, 1684 participants). Exercise versus no treatment/usual care/limited education Compared with no treatment/usual care/limited education, low-certainty evidence indicates exercise may result in an improvement in pain immediately post-intervention (mean 13.14 points better (on a scale of 0 to 100), 95% CI 10.36 to 15.91; 56 studies, 4184 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence indicates exercise likely results in an improvement in physical function (mean 12.53 points better (on a scale of 0 to 100), 95% CI 9.74 to 15.31; 54 studies, 4352 participants) and a slight improvement in quality of life (mean 5.37 points better (on a scale of to 100), 95% CI 3.19 to 7.54; 28 studies, 2328 participants). There was low-certainty evidence that exercise may result in no difference in participant-reported treatment success (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.71 to 2.49; 3 studies, 405 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence that exercise likely results in no difference in study withdrawals (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.20; 53 studies, 4408 participants). There was low-certainty evidence that exercise may increase adverse events (RR 3.17, 95% CI 1.17 to 8.57; 18 studies, 1557 participants). Exercise added to another co-intervention versus the co-intervention alone Moderate-certainty evidence indicates that exercise when added to a co-intervention likely results in improvements in pain immediately post-intervention compared to the co-intervention alone (mean 10.43 points better (on a scale of 0 to 100), 95% CI 8.06 to 12.79; 47 studies, 4441 participants). It also likely results in a slight improvement in physical function (mean 9.66 points better, 95% CI 7.48 to 11.97 (on a 0 to 100 scale); 44 studies, 4381 participants) and quality of life (mean 4.22 points better (on a 0 to 100 scale), 95% CI 1.36 to 7.07; 12 studies, 1660 participants) immediately post-intervention. There was moderate-certainty evidence that exercise likely increases participant-reported treatment success (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.18 to 2.24; 6 studies, 1139 participants), slightly reduces study withdrawals (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.97; 41 studies, 3502 participants), and slightly increases adverse events (RR 1.72, 95% CI 1.07 to 2.76; 19 studies, 2187 participants). Subgroup analysis and meta-regression We did not find any differences in effects between different types of exercise, and we found no relationship between changes in pain or physical function and the total number of exercise sessions prescribed or the ratio (between exercise group and comparator) of real-time consultations with a healthcare provider. Clinical significance of the findings To determine whether the results found would make a clinically meaningful difference to someone with knee OA, we compared our results to established 'minimal important difference' (MID) scores for pain (12 points on a 0 to 100 scale), physical function (13 points), and quality of life (15 points). We found that the confidence intervals of mean differences either did not reach these thresholds or included both a clinically important and clinically unimportant improvement.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:
We found low- to moderate-certainty evidence that exercise probably results in an improvement in pain, physical function, and quality of life in the short-term. However, based on the thresholds for minimal important differences that we used, these benefits were of uncertain clinical importance. Participants in most trials were not blinded and were therefore aware of their treatment, and this may have contributed to reported improvements.
