OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness and safety of acupuncture for the treatment of chronic knee pain (CKP).
METHODS: We searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTERAL, CINAHL and four Chinese medical databases from their inception to June 2017. We included randomised controlled trials of acupuncture as the sole treatment or as an adjunctive treatment for CKP. The primary outcome was pain intensity measured by visual analogue scale (VAS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain subscale and 11-point numeric rating scale. Secondary outcome measurements included the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey and adverse events. The quality of all included studies was evaluated using the Cochrane risk-of-bias criteria and the STRICTA (Standards for Reporting Interventions in Controlled Trials of Acupuncture) checklist.
RESULTS: Nineteen trials were included in this systematic review. Of these, data from 17 studies were available for analysis. Regarding the effectiveness of acupuncture alone or combined with other treatment, the results of the meta-analysis showed that acupuncture was associated with significantly reduced CKP at 12 weeks on WOMAC pain subscale (mean difference (MD) -1.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.98 to -0.26, I(2)=62%, 3 trials, 608 participants) and VAS (MD -10.56, 95% CI -17.69 to -3.44, I(2)=0%, 2 trials, 145 patients). As for safety, no difference was found between the acupuncture and control groups (risk ratio 1.08, 95% CI 0.54 to 2.17, I(2)=29%).
CONCLUSION: From this systematic review, we conclude that acupuncture may be effective at relieving CKP 12 weeks after acupuncture administration, based on the current evidence and our protocol. However, given the heterogeneity and methodological limitations of the included trials, we are currently unable to draw any strong conclusions regarding the effectiveness of acupuncture for chronic knee pain. In addition, we found that acupuncture appears to have a satisfactory safety profile, although further studies with larger numbers of participants are needed to confirm the safety of this technique.
STRENGTHS: Systematic review without language restrictions.
LIMITATIONS: Only a few high-quality and consistent trials could be included in this review.
OBJECTIVE: To highlight research studies examining rehabilitation for hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA), as well as the outcome measures used to assess treatment efficacy, published in 2013.
DESIGN: A systematic search was performed in Medline, CIHAHL and Embase databases from January to December 2013. The search was limited to 2013, human studies, and English. Rehabilitation intervention studies included were prospective controlled designs. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system was used to evaluate the quality of evidence. First, individual articles were rated for quality. Second, articles were grouped based on outcome: OA disease markers, pain, physical function (self-reported, performance), and health.
RESULTS: Of 503 titles reviewed, 36 studies were included. The outcome measures related to OA disease markers were organized into subthemes of anthropometrics, biomechanics and physiology. The quality of evidence was of moderate, high, and low quality for anthropometric, biomechanical and physiological measures respectively. These studies supported the use of diet for weight loss combined with exercise. Bodies of evidence that showed the efficacy of exercise and passive strategies (thermal/electrical modalities, traction, manual therapy) for reducing pain were of low and moderate quality respectively. The evidence supporting diet and exercise, physiotherapy, and passive strategies to improve physical function was of moderate quality. Evidence supporting exercise to improve psychological factors was of moderate quality.
CONCLUSIONS: Exercise combined with diet for weight loss should be the mainstays of rehabilitation for people with knee and hip OA to provide benefit to OA disease markers, pain, physical function, and health.
To assess the effectiveness and safety of acupuncture for the treatment of chronic knee pain (CKP).
METHODS:
We searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTERAL, CINAHL and four Chinese medical databases from their inception to June 2017. We included randomised controlled trials of acupuncture as the sole treatment or as an adjunctive treatment for CKP. The primary outcome was pain intensity measured by visual analogue scale (VAS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain subscale and 11-point numeric rating scale. Secondary outcome measurements included the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey and adverse events. The quality of all included studies was evaluated using the Cochrane risk-of-bias criteria and the STRICTA (Standards for Reporting Interventions in Controlled Trials of Acupuncture) checklist.
RESULTS:
Nineteen trials were included in this systematic review. Of these, data from 17 studies were available for analysis. Regarding the effectiveness of acupuncture alone or combined with other treatment, the results of the meta-analysis showed that acupuncture was associated with significantly reduced CKP at 12 weeks on WOMAC pain subscale (mean difference (MD) -1.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.98 to -0.26, I(2)=62%, 3 trials, 608 participants) and VAS (MD -10.56, 95% CI -17.69 to -3.44, I(2)=0%, 2 trials, 145 patients). As for safety, no difference was found between the acupuncture and control groups (risk ratio 1.08, 95% CI 0.54 to 2.17, I(2)=29%).
CONCLUSION:
From this systematic review, we conclude that acupuncture may be effective at relieving CKP 12 weeks after acupuncture administration, based on the current evidence and our protocol. However, given the heterogeneity and methodological limitations of the included trials, we are currently unable to draw any strong conclusions regarding the effectiveness of acupuncture for chronic knee pain. In addition, we found that acupuncture appears to have a satisfactory safety profile, although further studies with larger numbers of participants are needed to confirm the safety of this technique.
STRENGTHS:
Systematic review without language restrictions.
LIMITATIONS:
Only a few high-quality and consistent trials could be included in this review.
