ObjectivesTo systematically review and provide estimates of the minimal important change (MIC) and difference (MID) for outcome tools in people with knee osteoarthritis (OA) after non-surgical interventions.DesignA systematic review.Data sourcesMEDLINE, CINAHL, Web of Science, Scopus and Cochrane databases were searched up to 21 September 2021.Eligibility criteriaWe included studies that calculated MIC and MID using any calculation method including anchor, consensus and distribution methods, for any knee OA outcome tool after non-surgical interventions.Data extraction and synthesisWe extracted reported MIC, MID and minimum detectable change (MDC) estimates. We used quality assessment tools appropriate to the studies’ methods to screen out low-quality studies. Values were combined to produce a median and range, for each method.ResultsForty-eight studies were eligible (anchor-k=12, consensus-k=1 and distribution-k=35). MIC values for 13 outcome tools including Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS)-pain, activities of daily living (ADL), quality of life (QOL) and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC)-function were estimated using 5 high-quality anchor studies. MID values for 23 tools including KOOS-pain, ADL, QOL and WOMAC-function, stiffness and total were estimated using 6 high-quality anchor studies. One moderate quality consensus study reported MIC for pain, function and global assessment. MDC values from distribution method estimates for 126 tools including KOOS-QOL and WOMAC-total were estimated using 38 good-to-fair-quality studies.ConclusionMedian MIC, MID and MDC estimates were reported for outcome tools in people with knee OA after non-surgical interventions. The results of this review clarify the current understanding of MIC, MID and MDC in the knee OA population. However, some estimates suggest considerable heterogeneity and require careful interpretation.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020215952.
Objective To identify individual characteristics associated with outcomes following combined first-line interventions for knee osteoarthritis. Methods MEDLINE, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science Core Collection and the Cochrane library were searched. Studies were included if they reported an association between baseline factors and change in pain or function following combined exercise therapy, osteoarthritis education, or weight management interventions for knee osteoarthritis. Risk of bias was assessed using Quality in Prognostic Factor Studies. Data was visualised and a narrative synthesis was conducted for key factors (age, sex, BMI, comorbidity, depression, and imaging severity). Results 32 studies were included. Being female compared to male was associated with 2–3 times the odds of a positive response. Older age was associated with reduced odds of a positive response. The effect size (less than 10% reduction) is unlikely to be clinically relevant. It was difficult to conclude whether BMI, comorbidity, depression and imaging severity were associated with pain and function outcomes following a combined first-line intervention for knee osteoarthritis. Low to very low certainty evidence was found for sex, BMI, depression, comorbidity and imaging severity and moderate certainty evidence for age. Varying study methods contributed to some difficulty in drawing clear conclusions. Conclusions This systematic review found no clear evidence to suggest factors such as age, sex, BMI, OA severity and presence of depression or comorbidities are associated with the response to first-line interventions for knee OA. Current evidence indicates that some groups of people may respond equally to first-line interventions, such as those with or without comorbidities. First-line interventions consisting of exercise therapy, education, and weight loss for people with knee OA should be recommended irrespective of sex, age, obesity, comorbidity, depression and imaging findings.
Objectives This systematic review aimed to determine the effects of neuromuscular gait modification strategies on indicators of medial knee joint load in people with medial knee osteoarthritis. Methods Databases (Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane Central, CINAHL and PubMed) were searched for studies of gait interventions aimed at reducing medial knee joint load indicators for adults with medial knee osteoarthritis. Studies evaluating gait aids or orthoses were excluded. Hedges’ g effect sizes (ES) before and after gait retraining were estimated for inclusion in quality-adjusted meta-analysis models. Certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Results Seventeen studies (k = 17; n = 362) included two randomised placebo-controlled trials (RCT), four randomised cross-over trials, two case studies and nine cohort studies. The studies consisted of gait strategies of ipsilateral trunk lean (k = 4, n = 73), toe-out (k = 6, n = 104), toe-in (k = 5, n = 89), medial knee thrust (k = 3, n = 61), medial weight transfer at the foot (k = 1, n = 10), wider steps (k = 1, n = 15) and external knee adduction moment (KAM) biofeedback (k = 3, n = 84). Meta-analyses found that ipsilateral trunk lean reduced early stance peak KAM (KAM1, ES and 95%CI: -0.67, -1.01 to -0.33) with a dose-response effect and reduced KAM impulse (-0.37, -0.70 to -0.04) immediately after single-session training. Toe-out had no effect on KAM1 but reduced late stance peak KAM (KAM2; -0.42, -0.73 to -0.11) immediately post-training for single-session, 10 or 16-week interventions. Toe-in reduced KAM1 (-0.51, -0.81 to -0.20) and increased KAM2 (0.44, 0.04 to 0.85) immediately post-training for single-session to 6-week interventions. Visual, verbal and haptic feedback was used to train gait strategies. Certainty of evidence was very-low to low according to the GRADE approach. Conclusion Very-low to low certainty of evidence suggests that there is a potential that ipsilateral trunk lean, toe-out, and toe-in to be clinically helpful to reduce indicators of medial knee joint load. There is yet little evidence for interventions over several weeks.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.