OBJECTIVE: To conduct a network meta-analysis comparing all treatments for osteoarthritis (OA) pain in the Cochrane Library.
DESIGN: The Cochrane Library and Epistemonikos were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about treatments for hip and knee OA. We constructed 17 broad categories, comprising drug treatments, exercise, surgery, herbs, orthotics, passive treatments, regenerative medicine, diet/weight loss, combined treatments, and controls. In addition to a full network analysis, we compared the direct/indirect effects, and studies with shorter-/longer follow-up. CINeMA software was used for assessing confidence in network meta-analysis estimates.
RESULTS: We included 35 systematic reviews including 445 RCTs. There were 153 treatments for OA. In total, 491 comparisons were related to knee OA, less on hip OA, and only nine on hand OA. Six treatment categories showed clinically significant effects favoring treatment over control on pain. "Diet/weight loss" and "Surgery" had effect sizes close to zero. The network as a whole was not coherent. Of 136 treatment comparisons, none were rated as high confidence, six as moderate, 13 as low, and 117 as very low.
CONCLUSIONS: Direct comparison of different available treatment options for OA is desirable, however not currently feasible in practice, due to heterogeneous study populations and lack of clear descriptions of control interventions. We found that many treatments were effective, but since the network as a whole was not coherent and lacked high confidence in the treatment comparisons, we could not produce a ranking of effects.
BACKGROUND: Previous meta-analyses have been conducted to compare outcomes of various treatment injections for lateral epicondylitis (LE), including corticosteroid injection (CSI) and autologous blood products such as autologous blood (AB) and platelet-rich plasma (PRP).
PURPOSE: To conduct a systematic review of overlapping meta-analyses comparing different injection treatments (CSI, AB, PRP) for LE to determine which meta-analyses provide the best available evidence.
STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 2.
METHODS: A systematic review was performed by searching PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library to locate meta-analyses that compared clinical outcomes of CSI, AB, and PRP for the treatment of LE. Search terms included "injection," "corticosteroid," "platelet-rich plasma," "autologous blood," "tennis elbow," "lateral epicondylitis," and "meta-analysis." Results were reviewed to determine study eligibility. Patient outcomes were extracted from these meta-analyses. Meta-analysis quality was assessed with the Oxman-Guyatt and Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses (QUOROM) systems. The Jadad decision algorithm was then used to determine which meta-analyses provided the best level of evidence.
RESULTS: Nine meta-analyses (two level 1 studies, seven level 2 studies) containing 8656 patients met the eligibility criteria. Seven meta-analyses found that autologous blood products such as AB and PRP significantly improved pain and elbow function in the intermediate term (12-26 weeks), while 4 studies found that CSI effectively relieved pain and improved elbow function in the short term (<12 weeks). The study by Arirachakaran et al in 2016 received the highest QUOROM and Oxman-Guyatt scores; therefore, this meta-analysis appears to have the highest level of evidence. In addition, this study was rated the highest-quality study in this systematic review according to the Jadad decision algorithm. Lower-quality meta-analyses indicated that dosage, number of injections, and differences in therapeutic duration between CSI and autologous blood products may be essential factors in determining the appropriate treatment injection protocol for LE.
CONCLUSION: The current best available evidence suggests that CSI improves functional outcomes and pain relief in the short term, while AB and PRP are the most effective treatments in the intermediate term.
BACKGROUND: Numerous, often multi-faceted regimens are available for treating complex wounds, yet the evidence of these interventions is recondite across the literature. We aimed to identify effective interventions to treat complex wounds through an overview of systematic reviews.
METHODS: MEDLINE (OVID interface, 1946 until October 26, 2012), EMBASE (OVID interface, 1947 until October 26, 2012), and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Issue 10 of 12, 2012) were searched on October 26, 2012. Systematic reviews that examined adults receiving care for their complex wounds were included. Two reviewers independently screened the literature, abstracted data, and assessed study quality using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool.
RESULTS: Overall, 99 systematic reviews were included after screening 6,200 titles and abstracts and 422 full-texts; 54 were systematic reviews with a meta-analysis (including data on over 54,000 patients) and 45 were systematic reviews without a meta-analysis. Overall, 44% of included reviews were rated as being of high quality (AMSTAR score ≥8). Based on data from systematic reviews including a meta-analysis with an AMSTAR score ≥8, promising interventions for complex wounds were identified. These included bandages or stockings (multi-layer, high compression) and wound cleansing for venous leg ulcers; four-layer bandages for mixed arterial/venous leg ulcers; biologics, ultrasound, and hydrogel dressings for diabetic leg/foot ulcers; hydrocolloid dressings, electrotherapy, air-fluidized beds, and alternate foam mattresses for pressure ulcers; and silver dressings and ultrasound for unspecified mixed complex wounds. For surgical wound infections, topical negative pressure and vacuum-assisted closure were promising interventions, but this was based on evidence from moderate to low quality systematic reviews.
CONCLUSIONS: Numerous interventions can be utilized for patients with varying types of complex wounds, yet few treatments were consistently effective across all outcomes throughout the literature. Clinicians and patients can use our results to tailor effective treatment according to type of complex wound. Network meta-analysis will be of benefit to decision-makers, as it will permit multiple treatment comparisons and ranking of the effectiveness of all interventions. Please see related article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0326-3.
To conduct a network meta-analysis comparing all treatments for osteoarthritis (OA) pain in the Cochrane Library.
DESIGN:
The Cochrane Library and Epistemonikos were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about treatments for hip and knee OA. We constructed 17 broad categories, comprising drug treatments, exercise, surgery, herbs, orthotics, passive treatments, regenerative medicine, diet/weight loss, combined treatments, and controls. In addition to a full network analysis, we compared the direct/indirect effects, and studies with shorter-/longer follow-up. CINeMA software was used for assessing confidence in network meta-analysis estimates.
RESULTS:
We included 35 systematic reviews including 445 RCTs. There were 153 treatments for OA. In total, 491 comparisons were related to knee OA, less on hip OA, and only nine on hand OA. Six treatment categories showed clinically significant effects favoring treatment over control on pain. "Diet/weight loss" and "Surgery" had effect sizes close to zero. The network as a whole was not coherent. Of 136 treatment comparisons, none were rated as high confidence, six as moderate, 13 as low, and 117 as very low.
CONCLUSIONS:
Direct comparison of different available treatment options for OA is desirable, however not currently feasible in practice, due to heterogeneous study populations and lack of clear descriptions of control interventions. We found that many treatments were effective, but since the network as a whole was not coherent and lacked high confidence in the treatment comparisons, we could not produce a ranking of effects.
