Efficacy and safety of radiofrequency treatment for improving knee pain and function in knee osteoarthritis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
The clinical utility of radiofrequency (RF) in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA) remains unclear. We conducted a meta-analysis to systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of RF treatment in patients with knee OA.Methods
Searches of the PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang Data databases were performed through August 30, 2021. The major outcomes from published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving patients with knee OA were compared between RF and control groups, including Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) or Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) scores, the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), Oxford Knee Score (OKS), Global Perceived Effect (GPE) scale, and adverse effects at available follow-up times.Results
Fifteen RCTs involving 1009 patients were included in this meta-analysis, and the results demonstrated that RF treatment correlated with improvements in pain relief (VAS/NRS score, all P < 0.001) and knee function (WOMAC, all P < 0.001) at 1-2, 4, 12, and 24 weeks after treatment as well as patients' degree of satisfaction with treatment effectiveness (GPE scale, 12 weeks, P < 0.001). OKSs did not differ significantly between the two groups. Moreover, treatment with RF did not significantly increase adverse effects. Subgroup analysis of knee pain indicated that the efficacy of RF treatment targeting the genicular nerve was significantly better than intra-articular RF at 12 weeks after treatment (P = 0.03).Conclusions
This meta-analysis showed that RF is an efficacious and safe treatment for relieving knee pain and improving knee function in patients with knee OA.
SUBMITTER: Liu J
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8760716 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Radiofrequency (RF) treatment is an invasive and promising procedure in the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA). A meta-analysis based on 12 RCT studies was to investigate whether invasive RF treatment is more effective in relieving knee pain and improving knee function. Relevant studies were searched on database of Pubmed, Embase, EBSCO, Cochrane library, Wanfang digital database, VIP database, and CNKI up to January 2018. A total of 841 participants from 12 publications were included. The weighted mean difference (WMD) and the corresponding 95% CIs were used to evaluate the difference in pain scores and OKS/WOMAC scores between RF treatment and control groups. The statistical analysis was performed by Stata 12.0. The pain scores (VAS) in the RF group were lower than those in the conservative treatment group after 1 week (WMD -1.77, 95% CI -2.93 to -0.61, P<0.01), 1 month (WMD -1.40, 95% CI -1.98 to -0.82, P<0.01), and 3 months (WMD -1.32, 95% CI -2.27 to -0.37, P<0.01) of treatment, while there was no significant improvement in knee function. In subgroup analyses by site of radiofrequency, RF mode showed some discrepancies in the WMD of VAS between the treatment and control groups. In addition, subgroup analysis and meta-regression showed that the efficacy of RF treatment for reducing pain is reversely related to female ratio, and we did not find any surgery-related adverse reactions. RF treatment significantly reduces the knee pain, but rarely improves the knee joint function. Radiofrequency ablation has better efficacy than pulsed radiofrequency ablation in reducing pain. Furthermore, subgroup analysis and meta-regression suggested that women are more sensitive to RF treatment than men.
| S-EPMC6617930 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCurcuminoids (CURs) are the principal ingredients of Curcuma longa L. [Zingiberaceae] (CL)-an herbal plant used in east Asia to alleviate pain and inflammation. Thus far, the therapeutic effects of CURs for knee osteoarthritis (OA) uncovered by multiple reviews remained uncertain due to broadly involving trials with different agents-combined or CURs-free interventions. Therefore, we formed stringent selection criteria and assessment methods to summarize current evidence on the efficacy and safety of CURs alone in the treatment of knee OA.MethodsA series of databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy and safety of CURs for knee OA. Clinical outcomes were evaluated using meta-analysis and the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) for both statistical and clinical significance.ResultsFifteen studies with 1670 patients were included. CURs were significantly more effective than placebo in the improvements of VAS for pain ( WMD: - 1.77, 95% CI: - 2.44 to - 1.09), WOMAC total score ( WMD: - 7.06, 95% CI: - 12.27 to - 1.84), WOMAC pain score ( WMD: - 1.42, 95% CI: - 2.41 to - 0.43), WOMAC function score ( WMD: - 5.04, 95% CI: - 7.65 to - 2.43), and WOMAC stiffness score ( WMD: - 0.54, 95% CI: - 1.03 to - 0.05). Meanwhile, CURs were not inferior to NSAIDs in the improvements of pain- and function-related outcomes. Additionally, CURs did not significantly increase the incidence of adverse events (AEs) compared with placebo ( RR: 1.03, 95% CI: 0.69 to 1.53, P = 0.899, I2 = 23.7%) and NSAIDs (RR: 0.71 0.65, 95% CI: 0.57 0.41 to 0.90 1.03).ConclusionsCURs alone can be expected to achieve considerable analgesic and functional promotion effects for patients with symptomatic knee OA in short term, without inducing an increase of adverse events. However, considering the low quality and substantial heterogeneity of present studies, a cautious and conservative recommendation for broader clinical use of CURs should still be made. Further high-quality studies are necessary to investigate the impact of different dosages, optimization techniques and administration approaches on long-term safety and efficacy of CURs, so as to strengthen clinical decision making for patients with symptomatic knee OA.
| S-EPMC9580113 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Traditional Chinese medication (TCM) has analgesic and anti-inflammatory effects in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA). We conducted the first systematic review of the best quantitative and qualitative evidence currently available in order to evaluate the effectiveness of TCM in relieving pain in knee OA. A comprehensive literature search was conducted using three English and four Chinese biomedical databases from their inception through March 1, 2015. We included randomized controlled trials of TCM for knee OA with intervention durations of at least two weeks. The effects of TCM on pain and other clinical symptoms were measured with the visual analog scale (VAS) and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC). The total effectiveness rate, which was used to assess overall pain, physical performance and wellness, was also measured. Two researchers independently extracted data on study design, population characteristics, duration, intervention, outcomes, risk of bias, and primary results. We performed a random-effects meta-analysis when appropriate. We also explored factors that could explain the heterogeneity by conducting subgroup and meta-regression analyses. Twenty-three studies, totaling 2362 subjects, met the eligibility criteria. Treatments were formulated with an average of 8 Chinese herbs and were prescribed based on the traditional Chinese diagnostic method of syndrome differentiation. The mean treatment duration was seven weeks, with oral administration occurring one to three times a day. Compared with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and intra-articular hyaluronate injections, 18 of the studies showed significantly improved VAS pain scores (Mean Difference [MD] [Formula: see text] 0.56; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.18 to 0.94; [Formula: see text]), six of the studies showed significantly improved WOMAC pain subscale scores (MD [Formula: see text] 2.23; 95% CI, 0.56 to 3.91; [Formula: see text]), and 16 of the trials showed significantly improved total effectiveness rates (risk ratio [Formula: see text] 1.12; 95% CI, 1.05 to 1.19; [Formula: see text] 0.0003). In addition, TCM showed a lower risk of adverse events than standard western treatments. This evidence suggests that TCM is safe and effective for improving pain, function, and wellness in treatments of knee OA. However, there is inherent clinical heterogeneity (diverse TCM formulations, controls, and treatment regimens) among the included trials. Despite these limitations, the potential analgesic effects of TCM warrant further methodologically rigorous research to determine the clinical implications of TCM on pain management in knee OA.
| S-EPMC5553612 | biostudies-other
Project description:OBJECTIVE:To evaluate contextual effects in the form of placebo responses (PRs) for patient-reported pain and function and objectively measured function in osteoarthritis (OA) clinical trials. METHODS:Two authors independently searched major electronic databases from inception to 20 May 2019. Included studies were randomized, placebo-controlled OA trials of pharmacological agents reporting both patient-reported and objectively measured outcomes. PRs for each type of outcome measure were compared by standardized mean differences (SMDs). The placebo response ratio (PRR) assessed the placebo to treatment effect size. The effect sizes of PRs and PRRs were pooled using a random effects model. RESULTS:Twenty-one trials met the inclusion criteria; 20 were double-blinded with one not reporting on blinding status. Compared with patients' self-reported outcome (PRO) pain, PRs were significantly lower for PRO function (SMD - 0.16 [95% CI = - 0.28, - 0.05], p = 0.006), objectively measured muscle strength (SMD - 0.34 [95% CI - 0.58, - 0.10], p = 0.006), and range of motion (SMD = - 0.31 [95% CI = - 0.54, - 0.08], p = 0.008) function. Generally, PRs for function outcomes (patient-reported and objectively measured) were similar. The overall PRR for different measures ranged from the smallest (most favorable) for walking time/distance (0.30, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.43) to the largest for PRO pain (0.44, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.65). CONCLUSION:Function measures both subjective and objective had less contextual effects than pain measures in OA trials. Our results support the OMERACT-OARSI recommendations to include measures of physical function in all clinical trials of hip and knee OA and suggest that a greater use of function measures might enhance the success rates of pharmacological OA trials. Increasing the availability of mobile health apps should facilitate the acquisition of measured function data.
| S-EPMC6631867 | biostudies-other
Project description:Background and aimsThis meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the short-term and long-term efficacy of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and explore the role of diagnostic genicular nerve blocks in predicting treatment outcomes.MethodsA comprehensive literature search was conducted, and nine randomized controlled trials involving 714 participants were included in the analysis. Data extraction, risk of bias assessment, and subgroup analyses were performed. The primary outcome measures were pain scores at 6 and 12 months, assessed using visual analogue scale and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC). The quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology.ResultsThe meta-analysis revealed that RFA demonstrated a significant short-term efficacy in reducing pain compared to the control group at 6 months, as indicated by the pain scores [weighted mean difference (WMD): -2.69, 95% CI: -3.99, -1.40]. Similarly, WOMAC scores at 6 months favored the RFA group (WMD: -4.40, 95% CI: -7.12, -1.68). However, the long-term efficacy of RFA at 12 months remained uncertain for both pain scores (WMD: -0.88, 95% CI: -2.36, 0.61) and WOMAC (WMD: 0.03, 95% CI: -0.25, 0.32). Subgroup analysis suggested that a positive result from the diagnostic genicular nerve blocks test was associated with a more favourable short-term outcome.ConclusionThis meta-analysis provides moderate-quality evidence supporting the short-term efficacy of RFA in reducing pain in patients with knee osteoarthritis. The inclusion of a diagnostic genicular nerve blocks test prior to RFA may help identify patients likely to benefit from the procedure. But it still needs more large sample studies to verify the results. However, further research is needed to determine the long-term efficacy of RFA in managing knee osteoarthritis pain.
| S-EPMC10783354 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo perform a meta-analysis comparing the structural progression and clinical symptom outcomes as well as adverse events experienced from intra-articular injections of sprifermin compared to a placebo treatment for patients with knee osteoarthritis (KOA).MethodWe systematically searched the literature for studies that compared long-term outcomes between sprifermin and placebo injections for KOA treatment. Meta-analysis was performed with RevMan5.3 using an inverse variance approach with fixed or random effects models. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated.ResultsEight studies were included. Overall, there was significantly less improvement of WOMAC total scores in patients receiving sprifermin, compared with the placebo (mean difference (MD) = 3.23, 95% CI 0.76-5.69; I2 = 0%; P = 0.01). Further, sprifermin injection patients gained more, and lost less, cartilage thickness and volume in total femorotibial joint (cartilage thickness: standardized mean differences (SMD) = 0.55, 95% CI 0.26-0.84; I2 = 78%; P = 0.0002; cartilage volume: SMD = 0.39, 95% CI 0.20-0.58; I2 = 49%; P < 0.0001). Changes in the cartilage surface morphology of the medial tibio-femoral joint (MD = -0.30, 95% CI -0.44 to -0.16; I2 = 0%; P < 0.0001) and patello-femoral joint (MD = -0.22; 95% CI -0.37 to -0.07; I2 = 0%; P = 0.004) showed a significant difference between the sprifermin and placebo injections. Moreover, there were no significant differences between sprifermin and the placebo in the risk of treatment-emergent adverse events (OR = 1.05; 95% CI 0.52-2.14; I2 = 48%; P = 0.89).ConclusionThe data from the included studies provide strong evidence to determine the effect of intra-articular sprifermin on joint structure in individuals with KOA and show no specific adverse effects. Nevertheless, intra-articular sprifermin did not likely have any positive effect on symptom alleviation.
| S-EPMC8034149 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) was first introduced for treating knee osteoarthritis (OA) in 2010 and has emerged as a minimally invasive treatment option. Three RFA techniques have been adopted for treating knee OA, including conventional, pulsed, and cooled RFA. However, the efficacy among different RFA techniques in the treatment of knee OA is still unclear. Three electronic databases were systematically searched for relevant articles, including PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library. A meta-analysis of articles that investigated the use of RFA techniques in the treatment of knee OA was conducted to pool the effect size in pain before and after treatment. A total of 20 eligible articles (including 605 patients) were included for our meta-analysis. After treatment, the patients had significant improvements in pain for all three RFA techniques when compared with the baseline level for the 1, 3-, and 6-month follow-ups (p < 0.00001). However, there were no significant differences in the efficacy among the three RFA techniques for all follow-up visits (p > 0.05). The three RFA techniques demonstrated a significant improvement in pain for up to 6 months after treatment. Comparing the efficacy of the three RFA techniques in the treatment of knee OA, our results showed that no significant differences in pain relief among the three RFA techniques were observed at the 1-, 3-, 6, and 12-month follow-up visits.
| S-EPMC8306337 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC4381278 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe management of knee osteoarthritis involves various treatment strategies. It is important to explore alternative therapies that are both safe and effective. Collagen peptides have emerged as a potential intervention for knee osteoarthritis. This study aims to evaluate the analgesic effects and safety of collagen peptide in patients diagnosed with knee osteoarthritis.MethodsWe conducted a systematic literature search following the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. Multiple databases including PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published up to 27 May 2023 that focused on the analgesic outcomes and adverse events associated with collagen peptides or hydrolyzed collagen in patients with osteoarthritis. We assessed the quality of the included studies and the strength of evidence using the Cochrane ROB 2.0 tool and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations.ResultsFour trials involving 507 patients with knee osteoarthritis were included and analyzed using the random-effects model. All these trials were considered to have a high risk of bias. Our results revealed a significant difference in pain relief between the collagen peptide group and the placebo group in patients with knee osteoarthritis (standardized mean difference: - 0.58; 95% CI - 0.98, - 0.18, p = 0.004; I2: 68%; quality of evidence: moderate). However, there was no significant difference in the risk of adverse events between collagen peptide and placebo (odds ratio: 1.66; 95% CI 0.99, 2.78, p = 0.05; I2: 0%; quality of evidence: very low).ConclusionsOur findings demonstrate significant pain relief in patients with knee osteoarthritis who received collagen peptides compared to those who received placebo. In addition, the risk of adverse events did not differ significantly between the collagen peptide group and the placebo group. However, due to potential biases and limitations, well-designed randomized controlled trials are needed to validate and confirm these findings.
| S-EPMC10505327 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The principal objective of this present study was to compare the effects of different acupuncture methods on pain, stiffness, and physical function for osteoarthritis of the knee by the pairwise and network meta-analysis (NMA). A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was searched from three English databases and one Chinese database until January 2018. A pairwise meta-analysis was performed with a random effects model. Then we carried out the NMA within a Bayesian framework. Mean difference (MD) and its 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated by R 3.4.1, Stata 14.0, and RevMan 5.3 software to assess the relief of pain, the effectiveness for stiffness, and physical function recovery. Node-splitting method was used to calculate the inconsistency. Rank probabilities were assessed and clustered by the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA). 16 trials mostly researched short-term effectiveness and showed that fire needle and electro-acupuncture were statistically significant to decrease WOMAC pain and physical function scores when compared with other treatments, but there was no significant difference in stiffness calculations. Our NMA demonstrated that acupuncture with heat pain or electrical stimulation might be suggested as the better choices in all acupuncture methods to osteoarthritis of the knee.
| S-EPMC6236871 | biostudies-literature