A randomized controlled trial on the effect of focal thermal therapy at acupressure points treating osteoarthritis of the knee

Minimal clinically important change of knee flexion in people with knee osteoarthritis after non-surgical interventions using a meta-analytical approach

BACKGROUND

Minimal clinically important change (MCIC) represents the minimum patient-perceived improvement in an outcome after treatment, in an individual or within a group over time. This study aimed to determine MCIC of knee flexion in people with knee OA after non-surgical interventions using a meta-analytical approach.

METHODS

Four databases (MEDLINE, Cochrane, Web of Science and CINAHL) were searched for studies of randomised clinical trials of non-surgical interventions with intervention duration of ≤ 3 months that reported change in (Δ) (mean change between baseline and immediately after the intervention) knee flexion with Δ pain or Δ function measured using tools that have established MCIC values. The risk of bias in the included studies was assessed using version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials (RoB 2). Bayesian meta-analytic models were used to determine relationships between Δ flexion with Δ pain and Δ function after non-surgical interventions and MCIC of knee flexion.

RESULTS

Seventy-two studies (k = 72, n = 5174) were eligible. Meta-analyses included 140 intervention arms (k = 61, n = 4516) that reported Δ flexion with Δ pain using the visual analog scale (pain-VAS) and Δ function using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index function subscale (function-WOMAC). Linear relationships between Δ pain at rest-VAS (0-100 mm) with Δ flexion were - 0.29 (- 0.44; - 0.15) (β: posterior median (CrI: credible interval)). Relationships between Δ pain during activity VAS and Δ flexion were - 0.29 (- 0.41, - 0.18), and Δ pain-general VAS and Δ flexion were - 0.33 (- 0.42, - 0.23). The relationship between Δ function-WOMAC (out of 100) and Δ flexion was - 0.15 (- 0.25, - 0.07). Increased Δ flexion was associated with decreased Δ pain-VAS and increased Δ function-WOMAC. The point estimates for MCIC of knee flexion ranged from 3.8 to 6.4°.

CONCLUSIONS

The estimated knee flexion MCIC values from this study are the first to be reported using a novel meta-analytical method. The novel meta-analytical method may be useful to estimate MCIC for other measures where anchor questions are problematic.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42022323927.

What are the unsupervised exercise adherence rates in clinical trials for knee osteoarthritis? A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Exercise is an effective intervention for knee osteoarthritis (OA), and unsupervised exercise programs should be a common adjunct to most treatments. However, it is unknown if current clinical trials are capturing information regarding adherence.

OBJECTIVE

To summarize the extent and quality of reporting of unsupervised exercise adherence in clinical trials for knee OA.

METHODS

Reviewers searched five databases (PubMed, CINAHL, Medline (OVID), EMBASE and Cochrane). Randomized controlled trials where participants with knee OA engaged in an unsupervised exercise program were included. The extent to which exercise adherence was monitored and reported was assessed and findings were subgrouped according to method for tracking adherence. The types of adherence measurement categories were synthesized. A quality assessment was completed using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scores.

RESULTS

Of 3622 abstracts screened, 176 studies met criteria for inclusion. PEDro scores for study quality ranged from two to ten (mean=6.3). Exercise adherence data was reported in 72 (40.9%) studies. Twenty-six (14.8%) studies only mentioned collection of adherence. Adherence rates ranged from 3.7 to 100% in trials that reported adherence. For 18 studies (10.2%) that tracked acceptable adherence, there was no clear superiority in treatment effect based on adherence rates.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical trials for knee OA do not consistently collect or report adherence with unsupervised exercise programs. Slightly more than half of the studies reported collecting adherence data while only 40.9% reported findings with substantial heterogeneity in tracking methodology. The clinical relevance of these programs cannot be properly contextualized without this information.

Osteoarthritis year in review 2022: rehabilitation

This year in review presents key highlights from research relating to osteoarthritis (OA) rehabilitation published from the 1^st April 2021 to the 18^th March 2022. To identify studies for inclusion in the review, an electronic database search was carried out in Medline, Embase and CINAHLplus. Following screening, included studies were grouped according to their predominant topic area, including core OA rehabilitation treatments (education, exercise, weight loss), adjunctive treatments, novel and emerging treatments or research methods, and translation of rehabilitation evidence into practice. Studies of perceived high clinical importance, quality, or controversy in the field were selected for inclusion in the review. Headline findings include: the positive role of technology to support remote delivery of core OA rehabilitation treatments, the importance of delivering educational interventions alongside exercise, the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a stepped approach to exercise, controversy around the potential mechanisms of action of exercise, mixed findings regarding the use of splinting for thumb base OA, increasing research on blood flow restriction training as a potential new intervention for OA, and evidence that the beneficial effects from core OA treatments seen in randomised controlled trials can be seen when implemented in clinical practice. A consistent finding across several recently published systematic reviews is that randomised controlled trials testing OA rehabilitation interventions are often small, with some risk of bias. Whilst future research is warranted, it needs to be large scale and robust, to enable definitive answers to important remaining questions in the field of OA rehabilitation.