Dataset Information

Efficacy of low-level laser therapy on pain and disability in knee osteoarthritis: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised placebo-controlled trials.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

Low-level laser therapy (LLLT) is not recommended in major knee osteoarthritis (KOA) treatment guidelines. We investigated whether a LLLT dose-response relationship exists in KOA.

Design

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Data sources

Eligible articles were identified through PubMed, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Physiotherapy Evidence Database and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials on 18 February 2019, reference lists, a book, citations and experts in the field.

Eligibility criteria for selecting studies

We solely included randomised placebo-controlled trials involving participants with KOA according to the American College of Rheumatology and/or Kellgren/Lawrence criteria, in which LLLT was applied to participants' knee(s). There were no language restrictions.

Data extraction and synthesis

The included trials were synthesised with random effects meta-analyses and subgrouped by dose using the World Association for Laser Therapy treatment recommendations. Cochrane's risk-of-bias tool was used.

Results

22 trials (n=1063) were meta-analysed. Risk of bias was insignificant. Overall, pain was significantly reduced by LLLT compared with placebo at the end of therapy (14.23 mm Visual Analogue Scale (VAS; 95% CI 7.31 to 21.14)) and during follow-ups 1-12 weeks later (15.92 mm VAS (95% CI 6.47 to 25.37)). The subgroup analysis revealed that pain was significantly reduced by the recommended LLLT doses compared with placebo at the end of therapy (18.71 mm (95% CI 9.42 to 27.99)) and during follow-ups 2-12 weeks after the end of therapy (23.23 mm VAS (95% CI 10.60 to 35.86)). The pain reduction from the recommended LLLT doses peaked during follow-ups 2-4 weeks after the end of therapy (31.87 mm VAS significantly beyond placebo (95% CI 18.18 to 45.56)). Disability was also statistically significantly reduced by LLLT. No adverse events were reported.

Conclusion

LLLT reduces pain and disability in KOA at 4-8 J with 785-860 nm wavelength and at 1-3 J with 904 nm wavelength per treatment spot.

Prospero registration number

CRD42016035587.

SUBMITTER: Stausholm MB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6830679 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background Knee osteoarthritis (OA) presented with knee pain and limitation of mobility is common, and it may become a chronic problem resulting in major loss of function, with related impaired activity of daily living. Current traditional therapy for knee OA includes pharmacological treatment and physiotherapy, but the efficacies are limited. An alternative noninvasive treatment low-level laser therapy (LLLT) applied to acupoints is still contradictory and the efficacy needs to be assessed. Methods and Materials We conduct the randomized double-blind control study to investigate the efficacy of a dual-frequency LLLT (combines red light (780?nm) and near-infrared light (830?nm)) in patients suffering knee OA. Participates were randomly assigned into active laser therapy (ALT) and placebo laser therapy (PLT) groups. Subjects in the ALT group were separately treated by laser apparatus at the three acupoints (SP9, SP10, and EX-LE2) on their knee joints under continuous radiation for 15?min at the maximum intensity, three times per week for four weeks. The PLT group used laser apparatus of the same model according to similar procedures without laser light emission. Outcome Measurements including visual analog scale (VAS), pain pressure threshold (PPT), and Lequesne index were used. Results A total of 30 subjects with two-sided knee OA in both groups completed the experiment. Statistically significant decreases were observed in the Lequesne index (5.27?±?3.26 vs. 10.83?±?3.83), conscious VAS 4 weeks after treatment (moving: 2.87?±?1.13 vs. 5.67?±?1.72; resting: 0.33?±?0.62 vs. 2.67?±?1.29), and the increase was noted in PPT (21.23?±?1.82?kg vs. 13.02?±?1.46?kg) in the ALT group compared with the PLT group. Conclusion It appears that the knee OA pain and disability can be decreased after a dual-frequency LLLT applied to acupoints (SP9, SP10, and EX-LE2). The clinical efficacy of LLLT is highly related to the therapeutic settings of the laser apparatus; hence, more clinical trials with diffident parameter settings are needed to be further clarified.

Project description:ObjectiveTo investigate the efficacy and safety of paracetamol (acetaminophen) in the management of spinal pain and osteoarthritis of the hip or knee.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesMedline, Embase, AMED, CINAHL, Web of Science, LILACS, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to December 2014.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesRandomised controlled trials comparing the efficacy and safety of paracetamol with placebo for spinal pain (neck or low back pain) and osteoarthritis of the hip or knee.Data extractionTwo independent reviewers extracted data on pain, disability, and quality of life. Secondary outcomes were adverse effects, patient adherence, and use of rescue medication. Pain and disability scores were converted to a scale of 0 (no pain or disability) to 100 (worst possible pain or disability). We calculated weighted mean differences or risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals using a random effects model. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool was used for assessing risk of bias, and the GRADE approach was used to evaluate the quality of evidence and summarise conclusions.Results12 reports (13 randomised trials) were included. There was "high quality" evidence that paracetamol is ineffective for reducing pain intensity (weighted mean difference -0.5, 95% confidence interval -2.9 to 1.9) and disability (0.4, -1.7 to 2.5) or improving quality of life (0.4, -0.9 to 1.7) in the short term in people with low back pain. For hip or knee osteoarthritis there was "high quality" evidence that paracetamol provides a significant, although not clinically important, effect on pain (-3.7, -5.5 to -1.9) and disability (-2.9, -4.9 to -0.9) in the short term. The number of patients reporting any adverse event (risk ratio 1.0, 95% confidence interval 0.9 to 1.1), any serious adverse event (1.2, 0.7 to 2.1), or withdrawn from the study because of adverse events (1.2, 0.9 to 1.5) was similar in the paracetamol and placebo groups. Patient adherence to treatment (1.0, 0.9 to 1.1) and use of rescue medication (0.7, 0.4 to 1.3) was also similar between groups. "High quality" evidence showed that patients taking paracetamol are nearly four times more likely to have abnormal results on liver function tests (3.8, 1.9 to 7.4), but the clinical importance of this effect is uncertain.ConclusionsParacetamol is ineffective in the treatment of low back pain and provides minimal short term benefit for people with osteoarthritis. These results support the reconsideration of recommendations to use paracetamol for patients with low back pain and osteoarthritis of the hip or knee in clinical practice guidelines.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO registration number CRD42013006367.

Project description:Despite the growing body of literature demonstrating a crucial role of T helper cell (Th) responses in the pathogenesis of osteoarthritis (OA), only few clinical studies have assessed interactions between Th cells and OA-related symptoms. Yet, the inclusion of clinical data in the interpretation of cellular analyses of Th cell infiltration is essential to reveal the mechanisms underlying the complex pathophysiology of OA pain and disability. Thus, the aim of the study was to analyze the infiltration pattern of Th cells in systemic (peripheral blood) and joint-derived (synovial membrane and fluid) samples from patients with knee OA in relation to OA-induced pain and disability. Therefore, radiographic OA severity, knee pain and function of 47 OA patients undergoing knee arthroplasty were evaluated prior to surgery. In parallel, samples of peripheral blood (PB), synovial membrane (SM) and synovial fluid (SF) were harvested and analyzed for different Th subsets using flow cytometry. According to surface marker expression Th cells (CD3+ CD4+ CD8-) were assigned to the Th subsets Th1 (CXCR3+, CCR5+), Th2 (CCR3+, CCR4+) and Th17 (CD161+, CCR6+). Interestingly, infiltration of the SM with all Th subtypes (Th1, Th2, Th17) significantly correlated with OA-induced disability. Most importantly, synovial CCR5+ and CCR3+ Th cell infiltration was associated with OA-related knee pain and disability. Furthermore, higher percentage rates of CXCR3+ Th cells in all tissue samples (PB, SM, SF) showed significant associations with OA severity. In contrast, increasing percentage rates of CD161+ Th cells in SM samples corresponded to a better functional outcome. In conclusion, the current study provides an extensive profile of the Th cell infiltration pattern in PB, SF and SM from patients with clinically relevant knee OA. Th cell infiltration of the SM might play a crucial role not only in the pathogenesis of OA but also in the development of OA-related knee pain and disability.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:There are some controversies about treatment modalities in osteoarthritis (OA), including chondroitin sulfate (CS). The objective of this study was to determine whether CS is effective at alleviating pain and improving function in patients with knee OA and to identify the factors that explain inconsistencies in clinical trial results. METHODS:We conducted a systematic review of randomized, placebo-controlled trials, searching the databases Medline, Cochrane central register for controlled trials and Scopus. Random effects meta-analysis was then performed, using tau2 and I2 statistics to assess heterogeneity. The pain and Lequesne index (LI) scores were expressed as standardized mean differences (SMDs), with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Heterogeneity was explored by stratifying the analyses according to pre-specified study-level characteristics and assessing the sources of funnel plot asymmetry. RESULTS:The inclusion criteria yielded 18 trials. Overall, CS significantly but inconsistently reduced pain (SMD: - 0.63; 95% CI: - 0.91, - 0.35; I2?=?94%) and improved function (SMD: - 0.82; 95% CI: - 1.31, - 0.33; I2?=?95%). When limiting the analysis to studies with a low risk of bias, the pharmaceutical grade CS of IBSA origin showed a greater reduction in pain (SMD: - 0.25; 95% CI: - 0.34, - 0.16; I2?=?75%) and function (SMD: - 0.33; 95% CI: - 0.47, - 0.20; I2?=?53%, p?=?0.07) compared with the other preparations (SMDPain: - 0.08; 95% CI: - 0.19, + 0.02; I2?=?20%; SMDFunction: - 0.18; 95% CI: - 0.36, +0.01; I2?=?0%). Assessing funnel plot asymmetry in the studies with a low risk of bias, we found strong correlations between the treatment effects and study size (pain: rS?=?0.93; LI: rS?=?0.86; p?<?0.05). Ultimately, there was no residual heterogeneity in the CS effects when the smallest studies were removed from the analyses. CONCLUSION:This new meta-analysis suggests that CS provides a moderate benefit for pain and has a large effect on function in knee OA, however with large inconsistency. The risks of bias, brand and study size were the factors explaining heterogeneity among the clinical trial results.