Celecoxib vs diclofenac sodium in patients with knee osteoarthritis: A protocol for systematic review and meta analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Huang H
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7220482 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Apr
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Celecoxib vs diclofenac sodium in patients with knee osteoarthritis: A protocol for systematic review and meta analysis.
Huang Hetao H Pan Jianke J Yang Weiyi W Chen Hongyun H Liang Guihong G Zeng Lingfeng L Liu Jun J Pan Biqi B
Medicine 20200401 15
<h4>Background</h4>Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) is one of the most common chronic muscular diseases in old people. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare celecoxib and diclofenac sodium in patients with knee osteoarthritis (KOA).<h4>Methods</h4>Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and clinical controlled trials (CCTs) comparing the use of celecoxib and diclofenac sodium in KOA patients were retrieved from each database from the date of database inception to September 2019. The outcome meas ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectiveThe aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to assess the cardiovascular (CV) risk of celecoxib on knee osteoarthritis (KOA) patients compared with the risk in those prescribed other non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), no intervention or placebo-controlled patients.MethodsThe following databases will be searched: MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, Chinese Nation Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Database, and the Chongqing VIP from inception to April 1, 2020. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of celecoxib that presented data on serious cardiovascular events among KOA patients will be included. Study selection, data extraction, quality assessment, and assessment of risk bias will be performed by 2 reviewers independently. Odds ratios and correlative 95% confidence intervals will be calculated to present the association between the celecoxib and CV risk using Review Manager version 5.3 when there is sufficient available data.Ethics and disseminationThis review does not require ethical approval. The results of this review may be published in a peer-reviewed journal or disseminated at relevant conferences.Prospero registration numberCRD42020166721.
| S-EPMC7440337 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHand osteoarthritis (OA) is a prevalent joint disorder and a great burden to both patients and society. While electroacupuncture (EA) and topical diclofenac sodium gel (DSG) are both currently used to treat OA, no head-to-head study of EA and topical DSG for hand OA exists. Thus, it remains unknown whether one intervention offers improved outcomes over the other. This study aims to compare the effects of EA and topical DSG in patients with hand OA.MethodsA total of 108 participants with hand OA according to the American College of Rheumatology criteria will be recruited and randomly assigned to the EA group or topical DSG group with a 1:1 allocation ratio. Participants in the EA group will receive EA treatment thrice weekly for 4 weeks, followed by a 12-week follow-up. In the topical DSG group, topical DSG at a dose of 2 g over the affected joints per hand will be applied four times per day for 4 weeks. The outcomes will be measured at weeks 4, 8, and 16. The primary outcome will be the change in average overall finger joint pain intensity in the dominant hand from baseline to week 4. All outcome variables will be analyzed on an intention-to-treat principle. All statistical tests will be two-sided.DiscussionThis study will help determine which of the two treatment protocols, EA or topical DSG, is more effective for the clinical treatment of hand OA. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04402047. Registered 16 May 2020, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04402047.
| S-EPMC9004119 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness and safety of viscosupplementation for pain and function in patients with knee osteoarthritis.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials.Data sourcesSearches were conducted of Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases from inception to 11 September 2021. Unpublished trials were identified from the grey literature and trial registries.Eligibility criteria for study selectionRandomised trials comparing viscosupplementation with placebo or no intervention for knee osteoarthritis treatment.Main outcome measuresThe prespecified primary outcome was pain intensity. Secondary outcomes were function and serious adverse events. Pain and function were analysed as standardised mean differences (SMDs). The prespecified minimal clinically important between group difference was -0.37 SMD. Serious adverse events were analysed as relative risks.MethodsTwo reviewers independently extracted relevant data and assessed the risk of bias of trials using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The predefined main analysis was based only on large, placebo controlled trials with ≥100 participants per group. Summary results were obtained through a random effects meta-analysis model. Cumulative meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis under a random effects model were also performed.Results169 trials provided data on 21 163 randomised participants. Evidence of small study effects and publication biases was observed for pain and function (Egger's tests with P<0.001 and asymmetric funnel plots). Twenty four large, placebo controlled trials (8997 randomised participants) included in the main analysis of pain indicated that viscosupplementation was associated with a small reduction in pain intensity compared with placebo (SMD -0.08, 95% confidence interval -0.15 to -0.02), with the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval excluding the minimal clinically important between group difference. This effect corresponds to a difference in pain scores of -2.0 mm (95% confidence interval -3.8 to -0.5 mm) on a 100 mm visual analogue scale. Trial sequential analysis for pain indicated that since 2009 there has been conclusive evidence of clinical equivalence between viscosupplementation and placebo. Similar conclusions were obtained for function. Based on 15 large, placebo controlled trials on 6462 randomised participants, viscosupplementation was associated with a statistically significant higher risk of serious adverse events than placebo (relative risk 1.49, 95% confidence interval 1.12 to 1.98).ConclusionStrong conclusive evidence indicates that viscosupplementation leads to a small reduction in knee osteoarthritis pain compared with placebo, but the difference is less than the minimal clinically important between group difference. Strong conclusive evidence indicates that viscosupplementation is also associated with an increased risk of serious adverse events compared with placebo. The findings do not support broad use of viscosupplementation for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42021236894.
| S-EPMC9258606 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundOsteoarthritis is the most common degenerative joint disease. It is associated with significant socioeconomic burden and poor quality of life, mainly due to knee osteoarthritis (KOA), and related total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Since early detection method and disease-modifying drug is lacking, the key of KOA treatment is shifting to disease prevention and progression slowing. The prognostic prediction models are called for to guide clinical decision-making. The aim of our review is to identify and characterize reported multivariable prognostic models for KOA about three clinical concerns: (1) the risk of developing KOA in the general population, (2) the risk of receiving TKA in KOA patients, and (3) the outcome of TKA in KOA patients who plan to receive TKA.MethodsThe electronic datasets (PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus, SportDiscus, and CINAHL) and gray literature sources (OpenGrey, British Library Inside, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global, and BIOSIS preview) will be searched from their inception onwards. Title and abstract screening and full-text review will be accomplished by two independent reviewers. The multivariable prognostic models that concern on (1) the risk of developing KOA in the general population, (2) the risk of receiving TKA in KOA patients, and (3) the outcome of TKA in KOA patients who plan to receive TKA will be included. Data extraction instrument and critical appraisal instrument will be developed before formal assessment and will be modified during a training phase in advance. Study reporting transparency, methodological quality, and risk of bias will be assessed according to the TRIPOD statement, CHARMS checklist, and PROBAST tool, respectively. Prognostic prediction models will be summarized qualitatively. Quantitative metrics on the predictive performance of these models will be synthesized with meta-analyses if appropriate.DiscussionOur systematic review will collate evidence from prognostic prediction models that can be used through the whole process of KOA. The review may identify models which are capable of allowing personalized preventative and therapeutic interventions to be precisely targeted at those individuals who are at the highest risk. To accomplish the prediction models to cross the translational gaps between an exploratory research method and a valued addition to precision medicine workflows, research recommendations relating to model development, validation, or impact assessment will be made.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42020203543.
| S-EPMC8131111 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionKnee osteoarthritis (KOA) is one of the leading causes of disability. The effectiveness of acupuncture for treating KOA remains controversial. This protocol describes the method of a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the effectiveness and safety of acupuncture for treating KOA.Methods and analysisFour English databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library databases and Web of Science) and four Chinese databases (China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, VIP Database for Chinese Technical Periodicals, and Wanfang) will be searched from the database inception to 1 September 2021. All randomised controlled trials related to acupuncture for KOA will be included. Extracted data will include publication details, basic information, demographic data, intervention details and patient outcomes. The primary outcome will be pain intensity. Risk of bias will be assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias. Article selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment will be performed in duplicate by two independent reviewers. If the meta-analysis is precluded, we will conduct a descriptive synthesis using a best-evidence synthesis approach. The strength of recommendations and quality of evidence will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation working group methodology.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not required because individual patient data are not included. This protocol was registered in the international Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews on 25 February 2021. The systematic review and meta-analysis will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. The findings will also be disseminated through conference presentations.Trial registration numberCRD42021232177.
| S-EPMC8753400 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionBackward walking (BW) is otherwise known as retrowalking. As opposed to forward walking, BW is a countersequential exercise and is a common method of rehabilitation training and disease-assisted treatment. Studies have shown that BW has a helpful effect on improving lower limb proprioception, gait synergy and improving limb balance. Many studies have concluded that BW can improve the symptoms of patients with knee osteoarthritis (KOA) and can be used for rehabilitation and adjunctive treatment of KOA, but there is a lack of evidence-based medical evidence.This research aims to provide an update to the most recent available evidence on the effect of BW on patients with KOA .Methods and analysesElectronic databases, such as Ovid/MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science and PubMed, will be searched by us. We will include studies identified from citation until 12 May 2020 and will not be restricted by geographical setting. The search will not be limited to the language of the publication, but the study of human subjects. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the BW training of KOA will be included, with outcome measures including pain, knee function or balance function. The quality of included RCTs will be evaluated according to the Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool. A meta-analysis or systematic review will be performed to summarise the effects of BW training. We will perform sensitivity analysis on the sample size of RCTs, meta-regression analysis of the follow-up periods, dosages and baselines of outcome measures, and publication bias analysis.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required as this study will not involve confidential personal data. The results of this study will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed journal.Prospero registration numberCRD42020185694.
| S-EPMC7783601 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) is one of the most common chronic muscular diseases in old people. In recent years, people are more and more interested in the use of Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) in the treatment of KOA, such as kidney-tonifying and blood-activating medicinal herbs (KTBAMs) in the treatment of KOA. Many studies have confirmed that KTBAMs are effective in the treatment of KOA. However, it is still unknown whether KTBAMs and NSAIDs are more effective in the treatment of KOA. Therefore, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of KTBAMs and NSAIDs in the treatment of KOA. METHODS:Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from online databases including PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese Scientific Journal Database, Wanfang Data, and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database that compared the efficacy of KTBAMs and NSAIDs in the treatment of KOA were retrieved. The main outcomes included the evaluation of functional outcomes, pain and adverse effects. The Cochrane risk of bias (ROB) tool was used to assess methodological quality. RESULTS:The literature will provide a high-quality analysis of the current evidence supporting KTBAMs for KOA based on various comprehensive assessments including the total effective rate, visual analog scale scores, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), Lequence scores, Knee Society Scale (KSS) scores, and adverse effects. CONCLUSION:This proposed systematic review will provide up-to-date evidence to assess the effect of KTBAMs in the treatment for patients with KOA. RESEARCH REGISTRY REGISTRATION NUMBER: : reviewregistry 783.
| S-EPMC7478677 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundKnee osteoarthritis (KOA), a common clinical chronic osteoarthropathy, has adverse effects on the working ability and life quality of patients. At present, acupotomy and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have been widely applied on KOA in China and has achieved satisfactory results. However, there is no systematic review comparing the effectiveness of these two therapies for KOA. Therefore, this study will assess the efficacy and safety of acupotomy in treating KOA.Methods and analysisSeveral databases including CNKI, Wanfang Database, CBM, VIP, PubMed, Cochrane library, Web of Science, and Embase will be used by two independent researchers to search the related clinical RCTs about acupotomy therapy for KOA patients until May 2019. Subsequently, meta-analysis will be conducted by using Review Manager 5.3, and the related data will be analyzed by using the method for GRADE. The continuous data will be presented as the WMD or SMD with 95% CI, while dichotomous data will be shown as the RR with 95% CI.ConclusionOur results review will provide evidence to determine whether acupotomy can achieve the effect of NSAIDs, or whether it has advantages and safety compared with NSAIDs for patients with KOA.Ethics and disseminationThis study will not involve personal information. The ethical approval will not be required. This systematic review will be disseminated electronically through a peer-reviewed journal or international conference presentations.Prospero registration numberCRD42019129089.
| S-EPMC6739018 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To determine whether the administration of moxibustion is an effective treatment for knee osteoarthritis (KOA).We conducted a search of relevant articles using Medline, EMBASE, the Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library published before October 2015. The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities' Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC scale) and the short form 36 questionnaire (SF-36 scale) were assessed. Evidence grading was evaluated according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system.Four studies containing 746 participants fulfilled the inclusion criteria in the final analysis. In terms of quality of life (QOL), the meta-analysis of 2 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) showed significantly effects of moxibustion only in bodily pain (BP) compared with those in the control group (n?=?348; weighted mean difference [WMD], 4.36; 95% confidence intervals [CIs], 2.27-6.44; P?<?0.0001; heterogeneity: ??=?1.53, P?=?0.22, I?=?34%) in all of the subcategories of the SF-36 scale, with moderate quality. The meta-analysis of the 2 included trials showed that there was not a statistically significant difference in the pain or function subscale for the WOMAC scale when the 2 groups were compared (n?=?322; WMD, 17.63; 95% CI, -23.15-58.41; P?=?0.40; heterogeneity: ??=?19.42, P?<?0.0001, I?=?95%), with low or moderate quality separately.The administration of moxibustion can to some extent alleviate the symptoms of KOA. More rigorous, randomized controlled trials are required in the future.
| S-EPMC4998779 | biostudies-literature
Project description:MethodsWe performed a comprehensive search on PubMed, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and four Chinese databases for articles published prior to June 2020. We included only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that used acupotomy therapy as the major intervention in adults with knee OA, were published in either Chinese and English, included more than 20 subjects in each group, and included pain and function in the outcome measures. Knee OA was defined by the American College of Rheumatology or Chinese Orthopedic Association criteria in all studies. We extracted the visual analogue scale (VAS) pain score, the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain score, the total effectiveness rate, the modified Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) activities of daily living score, and Lysholm's score. We calculated the mean difference (MD) or risk ratio (RR) for all relevant outcomes. Meta-analyses were conducted using random-effects models when appropriate.ResultsWe identified 1317 potentially relevant studies, thirty-two of which met the eligibility criteria and were conducted in China between 2007 and 2020. A total of 3021 knee OA patients (62.96% female, median age: 57 years, and median disease duration: 33 months) were included. The treatment duration ranged from 1 week to 5 weeks (median: 3 weeks). The typical acupotomy treatment involved releasing soft tissue adhesions and was performed once a week for 1-5 weeks until the pain was relieved. The control group treatments included acupuncture (8 studies), electroacupuncture (10 studies), sodium hyaluronate (8 studies), radiofrequency electrotherapy (1 study), and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs, 5 studies). The results from the meta-analysis showed that acupotomy led to superior improvements in the VAS pain score (MD = -1.11; 95% confidence interval (CI), -1.51 to -0.71; p < 0.00001) and WOMAC pain score (MD = -2.32; 95% CI, -2.94 to -1.69; p < 0.00001), a higher total effectiveness rate (RR = 1.15; 95% CI, 1.09-1.21; p < 0.00001), and superior improvements in the JOA score (MD = 6.39; 95% CI, 4.11-9.76; p < 0.00001) and Lysholm's score (MD = 12.75; 95% CI, 2.61-22.89; p = 0.01) for overall pain and function. No serious adverse events were reported.ConclusionChinese acupotomy therapy may relieve pain and improve function in patients with knee OA. Furthermore, rigorously designed and well-controlled RCTs are warranted.
| S-EPMC7648689 | biostudies-literature