Broad syntheses related to this topic

loading
11 References (11 articles) loading Revert Studify

Broad synthesis

Unclassified

Interventions for osteoarthritis pain: A systematic review with network meta-analysis of existing Cochrane reviews

blocked
Journal Osteoarthritis and cartilage open
Year 2022
Links Pubmed DOI PubMed Central

This article includes 22 Systematic reviews Systematic reviews (22 references)

Loading references information
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.

Broad synthesis / Overview of systematic reviews

Unclassified

Efficacy of Platelet-Rich Plasma for non-transfusion use: Overview of Systematic Reviews.

blocked
Journal International journal of clinical practice
Year 2019
Links Pubmed DOI

This article includes 29 Systematic reviews Systematic reviews (29 references)

Loading references information
INTRODUCTION: Platelet Rich Plasma (PRP) is a blood component therapy with a supraphysiological concentration of platelets derived from allogenic or, more commonly, autologous blood. PRP has been used in different non-transfusion indications due to its role in the promotion of tissue repair and healing, in fields such as Traumatology, Dermatology and Dentistry. OBJECTIVE: To provide a synthesis of the efficacy of PRP for different clinical situations. METHODS: Systematic searches were carried out in MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library and LILACS in July 2018 to identify systematic reviews (SRs) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) focusing on PRP for non-transfusion use. Two authors independently screened all retrieved references in two stages (titles and abstracts at a first stage and full texts at a second stage). The methodological quality of SRs that met the eligibility criteria was appraised by AMSTAR 2. Conclusions were based on the most recent SRs with highest quality. RESULTS: 1,240 references were retrieved. After checking the inclusion criteria, 29 SRs of RCTs related to three different fields (wound care, Orthopedics and Dentistry) were included. Results suggest benefit of PRP for different clinical situations, such as diabetic wounds, acute lesions of musculoskeletal system, rotator cuff lesions, tendinopathies, knee and hip osteoarthritis, total knee arthroplasty, allogenic bone graft for dental implants, and periodontal intrabony defects. CONCLUSION: There is low to moderate quality evidence supporting the efficacy of PRP for specific clinical situations. The low quality of the evidence limits the certainty of these findings. Well-planed and well-conducted RCTs are still needed to further assess the efficacy of PRP. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Broad synthesis

Unclassified

Effective treatment options for musculoskeletal pain in primary care: A systematic overview of current evidence.

blocked
Journal PloS one
Year 2017
Links Pubmed DOI PubMed Central

This article includes 3 Primary studies Primary studies (3 references) 135 Systematic reviews Systematic reviews (135 references)

Loading references information
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Musculoskeletal pain, the most common cause of disability globally, is most frequently managed in primary care. People with musculoskeletal pain in different body regions share similar characteristics, prognosis, and may respond to similar treatments. This overview aims to summarise current best evidence on currently available treatment options for the five most common musculoskeletal pain presentations (back, neck, shoulder, knee and multi-site pain) in primary care. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted. Initial searches identified clinical guidelines, clinical pathways and systematic reviews. Additional searches found recently published trials and those addressing gaps in the evidence base. Data on study populations, interventions, and outcomes of intervention on pain and function were extracted. Quality of systematic reviews was assessed using AMSTAR, and strength of evidence rated using a modified GRADE approach. RESULTS: Moderate to strong evidence suggests that exercise therapy and psychosocial interventions are effective for relieving pain and improving function for musculoskeletal pain. NSAIDs and opioids reduce pain in the short-term, but the effect size is modest and the potential for adverse effects need careful consideration. Corticosteroid injections were found to be beneficial for short-term pain relief among patients with knee and shoulder pain. However, current evidence remains equivocal on optimal dose, intensity and frequency, or mode of application for most treatment options. CONCLUSION: This review presents a comprehensive summary and critical assessment of current evidence for the treatment of pain presentations in primary care. The evidence synthesis of interventions for common musculoskeletal pain presentations shows moderate-strong evidence for exercise therapy and psychosocial interventions, with short-term benefits only from pharmacological treatments. Future research into optimal dose and application of the most promising treatments is needed.

Broad synthesis / Overview of systematic reviews

Unclassified

Intra-articular Hyaluronic Acid in Treating Knee Osteoarthritis: a PRISMA-Compliant Systematic Review of Overlapping Meta-analysis.

blocked
Authors Xing D , Wang B , Liu Q , Ke Y , Xu Y , Li Z , Lin J
Journal Scientific reports
Year 2016
Links Pubmed DOI PubMed Central

This article includes 11 Systematic reviews Systematic reviews (11 references) 1 Primary study Primary studies (1 reference)

Loading references information
Numerous meta-analyses have been conducted aiming to compare hyaluronic acid (HA) and placebo in treating knee osteoarthritis (OA). Nevertheless, the conclusions of these meta-analyses are not in consistency. The purpose of the present study was to perform a systematic review of overlapping meta-analyses investigating the efficacy and safety of HA for Knee OA and to provide treatment recommendations through the best evidence. A systematic review was conducted based on the PRISMA guidelines. The meta-analyses and/or systematic reviews that compared HA and placebo for knee OA were identified. AMSTAR instrument was used to evaluate the methodological quality of individual study. The information of heterogeneity within each variable was fetched for the individual studies. Which meta-analyses can provide best evidence was determined according to Jadad algorithm. Twelve meta-analyses met the eligibility requirements. The Jadad decision making tool suggests that the highest quality review should be selected. As a result, a high-quality Cochrane review was included. The present systematic review of overlapping meta-analyses demonstrates that HA is an effective intervention in treating knee OA without increased risk of adverse events. Therefore, the present conclusions may help decision makers interpret and choose among discordant meta-analyses.

Broad synthesis / Living FRISBEE

Unclassified

Are intraarticular steroids effective for knee osteoarthritis?

blocked
Journal Medwave
Year 2016
Links Pubmed DOI

This article includes 12 Systematic reviews Systematic reviews (12 references) 39 Primary studies Primary studies (39 references)

Loading references information
Knee osteoarthritis is a chronic disabling condition that is both progressive and irreversible. Intraarticular steroids are commonly used to reduce osteoarthritis symptoms and to minimize the need for surgery. Nevertheless, debate still exists regarding the efficacy and safety of steroids. To address this point, we searched Epistemonikos database which is maintained by screening 30 separate databases and identified 12 systematic reviews including 41 studies addressing steroids use in knee osteoarthritis. Of these, 40 were randomized trials. The evidence from these studies was combined using meta-analysis, and a summary of findings table was constructed following the GRADE approach. We concluded intraarticular steroid use slightly decreases short-term pain, makes little or no difference in the mid-term, and may have no effects in the long-term.

Broad synthesis / Overview of systematic reviews

Unclassified

Is Local Viscosupplementation Injection Clinically Superior to Other Therapies in the Treatment of Osteoarthritis of the Knee: A Systematic Review of Overlapping Meta-analyses.

Journal Arthroscopy : the journal of arthroscopic & related surgery : official publication of the Arthroscopy Association of North America and the International Arthroscopy Association
Year 2015
Links Pubmed DOI

This article includes 13 Systematic reviews Systematic reviews (13 references) 1 Primary study Primary studies (1 reference)

Loading references information
PURPOSE: To conduct a systematic review of overlapping meta-analyses comparing treatment of knee osteoarthritis (OA) with intra-articular viscosupplementation (intra-articular hyaluronic acid [IA-HA]) versus oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), intra-articular corticosteroids (IA-corticosteroids), intra-articular platelet-rich plasma (IA-PRP), or intra-articular placebo (IA-placebo) to determine which meta-analyses provide the best current evidence and identify potential causes of discordance. METHODS: Literature searches were performed for meta-analyses examining use of IA-HA versus NSAIDs, IA-corticosteroids, IA-PRP, or IA-placebo. Clinical data were extracted, and meta-analysis quality was assessed. The Jadad algorithm was applied to determine which meta-analyses provided the highest level of evidence. RESULTS: Fourteen meta-analyses met the eligibility criteria and ranged in quality from Level I to IV evidence. In studies reporting patient numbers, there were a total of 20,049 patients: 13,698 receiving IA-HA, 355 receiving NSAIDs, 294 receiving IA-corticosteroids, and 5,702 receiving IA-placebo. Ten studies examined the effects of IA-HA versus IA-placebo; of these, 5 found that IA-HA improved pain and 4 found that IA-HA improved function. No clinically relevant differences in the efficacy of IA-HA versus NSAIDs regarding pain and function were found. Regarding IA-HA versus IA-PRP, IA-HA improved knee function at 2 and 6 months after injection but the effects were less robust than those of IA-PRP. Regarding IA-HA versus IA-corticosteroids, the positive effects of IA-HA were greater at 5 to 13 weeks and persisted for up to 26 weeks. After application of the Jadad algorithm, 2 concordant high-quality meta-analyses were selected and both showed that IA-HA provided clinically relevant improvements in pain and function compared with IA-placebo. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review of overlapping meta-analyses comparing IA-HA with other nonoperative treatment modalities for knee OA shows that the current highest level of evidence suggests that IA-HA is a viable option for knee OA. Its use results in improvements in knee pain and function that can persist for up to 26 weeks. IA-HA has a good safety profile, and its use should be considered in patients with early knee OA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, systematic review of Level I to IV studies.

Broad synthesis

Unclassified

Viscosupplementation for the treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee: clinical effectiveness and guidelines

blocked
Authors CADTH
Journal HTA Database
Year 2014
Links Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Fulltext

This article includes 8 Systematic reviews Systematic reviews (8 references)

Loading references information
RECORD STATUS: This is a bibliographic record of a published health technology assessment from a member of INAHTA. No evaluation of the quality of this assessment has been made for the HTA database. CITATION: CADTH. Viscosupplementation for the treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee: clinical effectiveness and guidelines. Ottawa: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH). Rapid Response - Summary of Abstracts. 2014

Broad synthesis

Unclassified

Intra-articular Injections of Hyaluronic Acid and Other Drugs in the Knee Joint.

Journal HSS journal : the musculoskeletal journal of Hospital for Special Surgery
Year 2013
Links Pubmed DOI PubMed Central

This article includes 10 Primary studies Primary studies (10 references) 3 Systematic reviews Systematic reviews (3 references)

Loading references information
BACKGROUND: Degenerative osteoarthritis of the knee (OA) affects 35% of persons older than 65 years. If pain persists after non-invasive treatment, some intra-articular drugs can be tried before surgical treatment. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: The purpose of this article is to review the literature after 2006 with the aim of answering two questions: (1) Are intra-articular injections of corticosteroids (CS), hyaluronic acid (HA) and platelet-rich plasma (PRP) effective in painful knee OA? and (2) Which of these drugs is more effective? METHODS: The search engines were MedLine and the Cochrane Library. The keywords used were: knee, osteoarthritis, and intra-articular injections. Eight hundred and forty-four articles were found but only 142 had been published after 2006. Of those, only 14 were selected and reviewed because they were strictly focused on the topic and the questions of this article. RESULTS: The clinical efficacy of intra-articular injections of HA and CS in patients with knee OA has been demonstrated. Pain reduction after three to five weekly injections of HA lasts between 5 to13 weeks (sometimes up to 1 year). Pain reduction is less durable after CS injections (2 to 3 weeks). Recent reports indicate that PRP could have a better performance than HA in younger patients. CONCLUSIONS: Three to five weekly intra-articular injections of HA are recommendable in patients with knee OA before surgical treatment. CS injections have a very short effect. The efficacy and duration of PRP injections require further studies.

Broad synthesis

Unclassified

Osteoarthritis of the knee.

blocked
Authors Scott D , Kowalczyk A
Journal BMJ clinical evidence
Year 2007
Links Pubmed PubMed Central

This article includes 75 Primary studies Primary studies (75 references) 11 Systematic reviews Systematic reviews (11 references)

Loading references information
INTRODUCTION: Osteoarthritis of the knee affects about 10% of adults aged over 60 years, with risk increased in those with obesity, and joint damage or abnormalities. Progression of disease on x rays is commonplace, but x ray changes don't correlate well with clinical symptoms. METHODS AND OUTCOMES: We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of non-surgical treatments for osteoarthritis of the knee? What are the effects of surgical treatments for osteoarthritis of the knee? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library and other important databases up to October 2006 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). RESULTS: We found 74 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions. CONCLUSIONS: In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: acupuncture, capsaicin, chondroitin, education to aid self-management, exercise and physiotherapy, glucosamine, insoles, intra-articular corticosteroids, intra-articular hyaluronan, joint bracing, knee replacement, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (including topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs), opioid analgesics, osteotomy, simple analgesics, and taping.

Broad synthesis / Overview of systematic reviews

Unclassified

Viscosupplementation for knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review.

blocked
Authors Divine JG , Zazulak BT , Hewett TE
Journal Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
Year 2007
Links Pubmed DOI

This article includes 5 Systematic reviews Systematic reviews (5 references)

Loading references information
Due to the rising number of patients affected by osteoarthritis (OA), appropriate management decisions for minimizing pain and improving physical function for patients with OA are important. Hyaluronic acid (HA) knee injections have become a common tool for the management of OA of the knee, and the number of randomized controlled trials on the efficacy and safety of this treatment is growing. We performed a systematic review of the five published meta-analyses, which include single- or double-blinded randomized trials performed at one center or multiple centers (Level I evidence). Within each meta-analysis, a quality assessment tool for each trial was used based on outcome measures of OA-related pain, disease severity, trial period, and mean efficacy. We analyzed and compared the data collection and qualitative analysis methods, outcomes, and conclusions presented for each meta-analysis. Although they used different strategies, each used scientifically sound methods for analysis of many of the same trials; however, each used a different measure of trial quality and heterogeneity. Despite these differences, all come to a similar conclusion that when the strictest quality tools and interpretation of heterogeneity are used, Level I evidence demonstrates that the use of HA in patients with OA results in modest improvement in validated outcomes.