2017
DOI: 10.1016/j.joca.2017.02.351
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Pharmacological approach of knee osteoarthritis treatment in primary care in spain

Abstract: low, study results were pooled per factor. If pooling was considered not appropriate a best evidence synthesis was conducted. The best evidence synthesis was conducted as follows: associations were categorized as positive, negative or no association. The ranking of levels of evidence was formulated as 1. Strong evidence: consistent finding ( 75% of the studies showing the same association) in multiple studies with a low risk of bias in all domains of the QUIPS tool, 2. Moderate evidence: consistent findings (7… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
5

Citation Types

0
10
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(10 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
10
0
Order By: Relevance
“…We conducted a sensitivity analysis to explore heterogeneity related to risk of bias. When studies scored as having a high risk of bias were removed (n = 5 studies) (46–48,67,69), the pooled prescribing estimate remained similar (43.8% [95% CI 36.8, 51.1], n = 46 studies, high quality of evidence I 2 = 5.1%) (11,12,25,26,28–46,49–56,58–61,58–64,65,66,68,70–73) compared to the original estimate with high heterogeneity (43.1% [95% CI 36.3, 50.1], n = 51 studies, I 2 = 99.9%, low quality of evidence). A post hoc sensitivity analysis was conducted to explore the primary analyses using an alternative statistical approach (see Supplementary Figure 1, available on the Arthritis Care & Research website at https://doi.org/10.1002/acr.25157), which resulted in less conservative estimates than our original model.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 98%
See 4 more Smart Citations
“…We conducted a sensitivity analysis to explore heterogeneity related to risk of bias. When studies scored as having a high risk of bias were removed (n = 5 studies) (46–48,67,69), the pooled prescribing estimate remained similar (43.8% [95% CI 36.8, 51.1], n = 46 studies, high quality of evidence I 2 = 5.1%) (11,12,25,26,28–46,49–56,58–61,58–64,65,66,68,70–73) compared to the original estimate with high heterogeneity (43.1% [95% CI 36.3, 50.1], n = 51 studies, I 2 = 99.9%, low quality of evidence). A post hoc sensitivity analysis was conducted to explore the primary analyses using an alternative statistical approach (see Supplementary Figure 1, available on the Arthritis Care & Research website at https://doi.org/10.1002/acr.25157), which resulted in less conservative estimates than our original model.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…The included studies were published between 1989 and 2022 and were all in English except 1 study published in Croatian (56). Studies were from 31 countries across the globe, including South Asia (n = 4 studies) (37,47,49,57), Middle East and North Africa (n = 1 study) (33), East Asia and Pacific (n = 10 studies) (12,25,32,38,40,51,53,58–60), Europe and Central Asia (n = 23 studies) (26–29,39,42,43,45,46,48,50,52,54–56,61–68), Latin America and Caribbean (n = 1 study) (44), and North America (n = 12 studies) (11,30,31,34–36,41,69–73). Most studies (90.2%) were from high‐income countries with 1 study from an upper‐middle income country (44), and 4 studies were from lower‐middle income countries (37,47,49,57).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 3 more Smart Citations