Dataset Information

Estimating contextual effect in nonpharmacological therapies for pain in knee osteoarthritis: a systematic analytic review.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Conduct a systematic review and use meta-analytic techniques to estimate the proportion of total treatment effect that can be attributable to contextual effects (PCE) in adults receiving nonpharmacological, nonsurgical (NPNS) treatments for knee osteoarthritis (OA).

Design

We reviewed the published literature to identify five frequently studied NPNS treatments for knee OA: exercise, acupuncture, ultrasound, laser, and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS). We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of these treatments and abstracted pre- and post-intervention pain scores for groups receiving placebo and active treatments. For each study we calculated the PCE by dividing the change in pain in the placebo group by the change in pain in the active treatment group. We log transformed the PCE measure and pooled across studies using a random effects model.

Results

We identified 25 studies for analysis and clustered the RCTs into two groups: acupuncture and topical energy modalities (TEM). 13 acupuncture studies included 1,653 subjects and 12 TEM studies included 572 subjects. The combined PCE was 0.61 (95% CI 0.46-0.80) for acupuncture and 0.69 (95% CI 0.54-0.88) for TEM.

Conclusion

Our findings suggest that about 61% and 69% of the total treatment effect experienced by subjects receiving acupuncture and TEM treatments, respectively, for knee OA pain may be explained by contextual effects. Contextual effects may include the placebo effect, changes attributable to natural history, and effects of co-therapies. These data highlight the important role of contextual effects in the response to NPNS OA treatments.

SUBMITTER: Chen AT

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7483273 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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.

Project description:ImportanceIndividually calibrated biomechanical footwear therapy may improve pain and physical function in people with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis, but the benefits of this therapy are unclear.ObjectiveTo assess the effect of a biomechanical footwear therapy vs control footwear over 24 weeks of follow-up.Design, setting, and participantsRandomized clinical trial conducted at a Swiss university hospital. Participants (N = 220) with symptomatic, radiologically confirmed knee osteoarthritis were recruited between April 20, 2015, and January 10, 2017. The last participant visit occurred on August 15, 2017.InterventionsParticipants were randomized to biomechanical footwear involving shoes with individually adjustable external convex pods attached to the outsole (n = 111) or to control footwear (n = 109) that had visible outsole pods that were not adjustable and did not create a convex walking surface.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was knee pain at 24 weeks of follow-up assessed with the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain subscore standardized to range from 0 (no symptoms) to 10 (extreme symptoms). The secondary outcomes included WOMAC physical function and stiffness subscores and the WOMAC global score, all ranging from 0 (no symptoms) to 10 (extreme symptoms) at 24 weeks of follow-up, and serious adverse events.ResultsAmong the 220 randomized participants (mean age, 65.2 years [SD, 9.3 years]; 104 women [47.3%]), 219 received the allocated treatment and 213 (96.8%) completed follow-up. At 24 weeks of follow-up, the mean standardized WOMAC pain subscore improved from 4.3 to 1.3 in the biomechanical footwear group and from 4.0 to 2.6 in the control footwear group (between-group difference in scores at 24 weeks of follow-up, -1.3 [95% CI, -1.8 to -0.9]; P < .001). The results were consistent for WOMAC physical function subscore (between-group difference, -1.1 [95% CI, -1.5 to -0.7]), WOMAC stiffness subscore (between-group difference, -1.4 [95% CI, -1.9 to -0.9]), and WOMAC global score (between-group difference, -1.2 [95% CI, -1.6 to -0.8]) at 24 weeks of follow-up. Three serious adverse events occurred in the biomechanical footwear group compared with 9 in the control footwear group (2.7% vs 8.3%, respectively); none were related to treatment.Conclusions and relevanceAmong participants with knee pain from osteoarthritis, use of biomechanical footwear compared with control footwear resulted in an improvement in pain at 24 weeks of follow-up that was statistically significant but of uncertain clinical importance. Further research would be needed to assess long-term efficacy and safety, as well as replication, before reaching conclusions about the clinical value of this device.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02363712.