PURPOSE: While strengthening exercises are recommended for knee osteoarthritis (KOA) treatment, the optimal type of muscle contraction remains unclear, with current research showing conflicting results. This network meta-analysis (NMA) aims to evaluate the efficacy of lower limb strengthening exercises based on different muscle contraction characteristics for KOA patients and provide clinical references.
METHODS: We conducted the NMA following the PRISMA-NMA. A comprehensive search of five databases (PubMed, Web of Science, CENTRAL, Embase, and SPORTDiscus) up to August 2024 identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating lower limb strengthening exercises in KOA patients. Control groups included receiving usual care, only providing health education, or no intervention at all. Outcomes analyzed included pain, physical function, quality of life, and muscle strength.
RESULTS: Forty-one studies (2,251 participants) were included. Twenty-eight studies used rigorous randomization; eighteen reported allocation concealment. All had high performance bias risk due to exercise interventions. Regarding efficacy, isokinetic exercise ranked highest in pain relief (SMD = 0.70, 95% CI: 0.50-0.91, SUCRA = 82.6%), function improvement (SMD = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.57-0.92, SUCRA = 96.1%), and enhancement in muscle strength (SMD = 0.56, 95% CI: 0.34-0.78, SUCRA = 90.1%). Isometric exercise ranked highest in improving quality of life (SMD = 0.80, 95% CI: 0.28-1.31, SUCRA = 90.5%). Mixed strengthening exercise ranked lowest across all outcomes. High-frequency interventions (≥5 times/week) showed superior pain relief compared with low-frequency (≤3 times/week) for isotonic, isometric, and isokinetic exercise.
CONCLUSION: This NMA suggests isokinetic exercise may be most effective for pain, function, and muscle strength in KOA patients, while isometric exercise benefits quality of life most. Mixed strengthening exercise ranked lowest across all outcomes. High-frequency interventions appear more effective than low-frequency ones. These findings support personalized KOA treatment, considering efficacy, accessibility, and patient-specific factors. Study biases, heterogeneity, and other limitations may affect result reliability. Future research should focus on high-quality studies with standardized protocols and analyze dose-response relationships to refine KOA treatment strategies.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42024582525, identifier: CRD42024582525.
BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis (OA) is a common and debilitating musculoskeletal condition that significantly impacts the quality of life of affected individuals. Various interventions, including weight training and exercise (WTE), have been explored to alleviate pain and improve mobility in knee OA patients. This study aimed to comprehensively analyze the existing literature to evaluate the effects of different WTE interventions on pain, mobility, knee function, and quality of life in individuals with knee OA. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted, with clinical trials being the primary type of studies included in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. The primary outcomes of interest were pain reduction and improvements in mobility, assessed through various validated measures. RESULTS: A total of 15 clinical trials were included in this review. The meta-analysis revealed mixed findings regarding the effects of WTE on pain and mobility in knee OA patients. While some interventions, such as high-intensity resistance training, demonstrated significant reductions in pain and improvements in mobility, others showed no substantial differences compared to control groups. The diversity of exercise modalities and intervention durations across studies contributed to this variability. Nevertheless, the overall analysis indicated that WTE interventions have the potential to positively impact pain and mobility in knee OA, with variations depending on the specific exercise type and duration. CONCLUSION: The findings underscore the importance of tailoring exercise programs to individual patient needs and preferences. While certain exercise modalities yielded significant improvements, future research should focus on optimizing exercise protocols, conducting long-term follow-up assessments, and evaluating cost-effectiveness. These insights hold significant implications for healthcare providers seeking evidence-based strategies to enhance the well-being of knee OA patients.
OBJECTIVES: To review evidence for effectiveness of electrophysical therapies (EPTs), used adjunctively with land-based exercise therapy, for hip or knee osteoarthritis (OA), compared with 1) placebo EPTs delivered with land-based exercise therapy or 2) land-based exercise therapy only.
METHODS: Six databases were searched up to October 2023 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs)/quasi-RCTs comparing adjunctive EPTs alongside land-based exercise therapy versus 1) placebo EPTs alongside land-based exercise, or 2) land-based exercise in hip or knee OA. Outcomes included pain, function, quality of life, global assessment and adverse events. Risk of bias and overall certainty of evidence were assessed. We back-translated significant Standardised Mean Differences (SMDs) to common scales: 2 points/15% on a 0-10 Numerical Pain Rating Scale and 6 points/15% on the WOMAC physical function subscale.
RESULTS: Forty studies (2831 patients) evaluated nine different EPTs for knee OA. Medium-term effects (up to 6 months) were evaluated in seven trials, and one evaluated long-term effects (>6 months). Adverse events were reported in one trial. Adjunctive laser therapy may confer short-term effects on pain (SMD -0.68, 95%CI -1.03 to -0.34; mean difference (MD) 1.18 points (95% CI -1.78 to -0.59) and physical function (SMD -0.60, 95%CI -0.88 to -0.34; MD 12.95 (95%CI -20.05 to -5.86)) compared to placebo EPTs, based on very low-certainty evidence. No other EPTs (TENS, interferential, heat, shockwave, shortwave, ultrasound, EMG biofeedback, NMES) showed clinically significant effects compared to placebo/exercise, or exercise only.
CONCLUSIONS: Very low-certainty evidence supports laser therapy used adjunctively with exercise for short-term improvement in pain and function. No other EPTs demonstrated clinically meaningful effects.
Osteoarthritis is associated with high risks of sarcopenia in older populations. Exercise interventions are promising treatments for musculoskeletal impairments in knee osteoarthritis (KOA). The purpose of this study was to identify the comparative effects of exercise monotherapy and its adjunct treatments on muscle volume and serum inflammation for older individuals with KOA. A literature search in the electronic databases was comprehensively performed from this study's inception until April 2024 to identify relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that reported muscle morphology and inflammation outcomes after exercise. The included RCTs were analyzed through a frequentist network meta-analysis (NMA). The standard mean difference (SMD) with a 95% confidence interval was estimated for treatment effects on muscle morphology and inflammation biomarkers. The relative effects on each main outcome among all treatment arms were compared using surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) scores. The certainty of evidence (CoE) was assessed by the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations) ranking system. Probable moderators of the treatment efficacy were investigated by network meta-regression analysis. This study included 52 RCTs (4255 patients) for NMA. Among the 27 identified treatment arms, isokinetic training plus physical modality as well as low-load resistance training plus blood-flow restriction yielded the most optimal treatment for inflammation reduction (-1.89; SUCRA = 0.97; CoE = high) and muscle hypertrophy (SMD = 1.28; SUCRA = 0.94; CoE = high). The patient's age (β = -0.73), the intervention time (β = -0.45), and the follow-up duration (β = -0.47) were identified as significant determinants of treatment efficacy on muscle hypertrophy. Exercise therapy in combination with noninvasive agents exert additional effects on inflammation reduction and muscle hypertrophy compared to its corresponding monotherapies for the KOA population. However, such treatment efficacy is likely moderated by the patient's age, the intervention time, and the follow-up duration.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review is to conduct a comprehensive and systematic assessment of the efficacy of Yoga as an intervention for knee osteoarthritis (KOA).
METHODS: We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, and PEDro as of January 3, 2024. Retrieved a total of 200 articles. Standardised mean differences (SMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated.
RESULTS: The study included a total of 8 trials and involved 756 KOA patients. The results indicated that compared to the control group, Yoga exercise showed significant improvements in alleviating pain (SMD = -0.92; 95% CI = -1.64 ~ - 0.20; P = 0.01, I2 = 94%), stiffness (SMD = -0.51; 95% CI = -0.91 ~ -0.12; P = 0.01; I2 = 66%) and physical function (SMD = -0.53; 95% CI = -0.89 ~ -0.17; P = 0.004; I2 = 59%) among KOA patients. However, there was no significant improvement observed in terms of activities of activity of daily living (ADL) (SMD = 1.03; 95% CI = -0.01 ~ 2.07; P = 0.05; I2 = 84%), and quality of life (QOL) (SMD = 0.21; 95% CI = -0.33 ~ 0.74; P = 0.44; I2 = 83%) with the practice of Yoga.
CONCLUSIONS: In general, Yoga has been found to be effective in reducing pain and stiffness in KOA patients, it can also improve the physical function of patients. However, there is limited evidence to suggest significant improvements in terms of ADL and QOL.
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.
OBJECTIVE: Are physical therapy or orthopaedic equipment efficacious in reducing the biomechanical risk factors in people with tibiofemoral osteoarthritis (OA)? Is there a better therapeutic intervention than others to improve these outcomes?
DESIGN: Systematic review with network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomised trials.
DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase and MEDLINE were searched through January 2021.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: We included randomised controlled trials exploring the benefits of using physical therapy or orthopaedic equipment in reducing the biomechanical risk factors which included knee adduction moment (KAM) and knee adduction angular impulse (KAAI) in individuals with tibiofemoral OA.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two authors extracted data independently and assessed risk of bias. We conducted an NMA to compare multiple interventions, including both direct and indirect evidences. Heterogeneity was assessed (sensitivity analysis) and quantified (I2 statistic). Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation assessed the certainty of the evidence.
RESULTS: Eighteen randomised controlled trials, including 944 participants, met the inclusion criteria, of which 14 trials could be included in the NMA. Based on the collective probability of being the overall best therapy for reducing the first peak KAM, lateral wedge insoles (LWI) plus knee brace was closely followed by gait retraining, and knee brace only. Although no significant difference was observed among the eight interventions, variable-stiffness shoes and neuromuscular exercise exhibited an increase in the first peak KAM compared with the control condition group. And based on the collective probability of being the overall best therapy for reducing KAAI, gait retraining was followed by LWI only, and lower limb exercise.
CONCLUSION: The results of our study support the use of LWI plus knee brace for reducing the first peak KAM. Gait retraining did not rank highest but it influenced both KAM and KAAI and therefore it was the most recommended therapy for reducing the biomechanical risk factors.
