Dataset Information

Efficacy and safety of radiofrequency treatment for improving knee pain and function in knee osteoarthritis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

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

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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.

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.

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:ObjectivesLow-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.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesEligible 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 studiesWe 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 synthesisThe 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.Results22 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.ConclusionLLLT 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 numberCRD42016035587.

Project description:PurposeA pooled analysis was conducted to evaluate tanezumab efficacy and safety in patients with osteoarthritis (OA), including subgroup analyses of at-risk patients with diabetes, severe OA symptoms, and those aged ≥65 years.Patients and methodsData from phase III placebo-controlled clinical trials of patients with moderate-to-severe OA of the knee or hip were pooled to evaluate tanezumab efficacy (four trials) and safety (nine trials). Patients received intravenous tanezumab, tanezumab plus an oral NSAID (naproxen, celecoxib, or diclofenac), active comparator (naproxen, celecoxib, diclofenac, or oxycodone), or placebo. Efficacy assessments included change from baseline to week 16 in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain and physical function scores, Patient's Global Assessment (PGA) of OA, and percentage of patients with ≥30%, ≥50%, ≥70%, and ≥90% improvement in WOMAC pain. Safety assessments included adverse event (AE) documentation and physical and neurologic examinations.ResultsTanezumab significantly improved all efficacy end points in the overall population. Efficacy in at-risk patient subgroups was similar to the overall population. Incidence of AEs was highest in the tanezumab plus NSAID group and lowest in the placebo group. Incidence of AEs in the tanezumab monotherapy and active comparator groups was similar. Overall incidence of AEs was similar across subgroups. AEs of abnormal peripheral sensation were more frequently reported in tanezumab-treated patients compared with placebo or active comparator. Patients receiving active comparator had a slightly higher incidence of AEs suggestive of postganglionic sympathetic dysfunction.ConclusionTanezumab consistently provided significant improvement of pain, physical function, and PGA in individuals with OA, including patients with diabetes, severe OA symptoms, or aged ≥65 years. No increased safety risk was observed in at-risk patient subgroups.Trial registrationNCT00733902, NCT00744471, NCT00830063, NCT00863304, NCT00809354, NCT00864097, NCT00863772, NCT01089725, NCT00985621.