Acupuncture and other physical treatments for the relief of pain due to osteoarthritis of the knee: network meta-analysis☆

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Summary

Objective

To compare the effectiveness of acupuncture with other relevant physical treatments for alleviating pain due to knee osteoarthritis.

Design

Systematic review with network meta-analysis, to allow comparison of treatments within a coherent framework. Comprehensive searches were undertaken up to January 2013 to identify randomised controlled trials in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee, which reported pain.

Results

Of 156 eligible studies, 114 trials (covering 22 treatments and 9,709 patients) provided data suitable for analysis. Most trials studied short-term effects and many were classed as being of poor quality with high risk of bias, commonly associated with lack of blinding (which was sometimes impossible to achieve). End of treatment results showed that eight interventions: interferential therapy, acupuncture, TENS, pulsed electrical stimulation, balneotherapy, aerobic exercise, sham acupuncture, and muscle-strengthening exercise produced a statistically significant reduction in pain when compared with standard care. In a sensitivity analysis of satisfactory and good quality studies, most studies were of acupuncture (11 trials) or muscle-strengthening exercise (9 trials); both interventions were statistically significantly better than standard care, with acupuncture being statistically significantly better than muscle-strengthening exercise (standardised mean difference: 0.49, 95% credible interval 0.00–0.98).

Conclusions

As a summary of the current available research, the network meta-analysis results indicate that acupuncture can be considered as one of the more effective physical treatments for alleviating osteoarthritis knee pain in the short-term. However, much of the evidence in this area of research is of poor quality, meaning there is uncertainty about the efficacy of many physical treatments.

Related collections

Most cited references 19

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

OARSI recommendations for the management of hip and knee osteoarthritis, Part II: OARSI evidence-based, expert consensus guidelines.

W. Zhang, R W Moskowitz, G Nuki … (2008)

To develop concise, patient-focussed, up to date, evidence-based, expert consensus recommendations for the management of hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA), which are adaptable and designed to assist physicians and allied health care professionals in general and specialist practise throughout the world. Sixteen experts from four medical disciplines (primary care, rheumatology, orthopaedics and evidence-based medicine), two continents and six countries (USA, UK, France, Netherlands, Sweden and Canada) formed the guidelines development team. A systematic review of existing guidelines for the management of hip and knee OA published between 1945 and January 2006 was undertaken using the validated appraisal of guidelines research and evaluation (AGREE) instrument. A core set of management modalities was generated based on the agreement between guidelines. Evidence before 2002 was based on a systematic review conducted by European League Against Rheumatism and evidence after 2002 was updated using MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED, the Cochrane Library and HTA reports. The quality of evidence was evaluated, and where possible, effect size (ES), number needed to treat, relative risk or odds ratio and cost per quality-adjusted life years gained were estimated. Consensus recommendations were produced following a Delphi exercise and the strength of recommendation (SOR) for propositions relating to each modality was determined using a visual analogue scale. Twenty-three treatment guidelines for the management of hip and knee OA were identified from the literature search, including six opinion-based, five evidence-based and 12 based on both expert opinion and research evidence. Twenty out of 51 treatment modalities addressed by these guidelines were universally recommended. ES for pain relief varied from treatment to treatment. Overall there was no statistically significant difference between non-pharmacological therapies [0.25, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.16, 0.34] and pharmacological therapies (ES=0.39, 95% CI 0.31, 0.47). Following feedback from Osteoarthritis Research International members on the draft guidelines and six Delphi rounds consensus was reached on 25 carefully worded recommendations. Optimal management of patients with OA hip or knee requires a combination of non-pharmacological and pharmacological modalities of therapy. Recommendations cover the use of 12 non-pharmacological modalities: education and self-management, regular telephone contact, referral to a physical therapist, aerobic, muscle strengthening and water-based exercises, weight reduction, walking aids, knee braces, footwear and insoles, thermal modalities, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation and acupuncture. Eight recommendations cover pharmacological modalities of treatment including acetaminophen, cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) non-selective and selective oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), topical NSAIDs and capsaicin, intra-articular injections of corticosteroids and hyaluronates, glucosamine and/or chondroitin sulphate for symptom relief; glucosamine sulphate, chondroitin sulphate and diacerein for possible structure-modifying effects and the use of opioid analgesics for the treatment of refractory pain. There are recommendations covering five surgical modalities: total joint replacements, unicompartmental knee replacement, osteotomy and joint preserving surgical procedures; joint lavage and arthroscopic debridement in knee OA, and joint fusion as a salvage procedure when joint replacement had failed. Strengths of recommendation and 95% CIs are provided. Twenty-five carefully worded recommendations have been generated based on a critical appraisal of existing guidelines, a systematic review of research evidence and the consensus opinions of an international, multidisciplinary group of experts. The recommendations may be adapted for use in different countries or regions according to the availability of treatment modalities and SOR for each modality of therapy. These recommendations will be revised regularly following systematic review of new research evidence as this becomes available.

0 comments Cited 701 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Interpreting the clinical importance of group differences in chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations.

Robert H Dworkin, Dennis C Turk, Michael McDermott … (2009)

An essential component of the interpretation of results of randomized clinical trials of treatments for chronic pain involves the determination of their clinical importance or meaningfulness. This involves two distinct processes--interpreting the clinical importance of individual patient improvements and the clinical importance of group differences--which are frequently misunderstood. In this article, we first describe the essential differences between the interpretation of the clinical importance of patient improvements and of group differences. We then discuss the factors to consider when evaluating the clinical importance of group differences, which include the results of responder analyses of the primary outcome measure, the treatment effect size compared to available therapies, analyses of secondary efficacy endpoints, the safety and tolerability of treatment, the rapidity of onset and durability of the treatment benefit, convenience, cost, limitations of existing treatments, and other factors. The clinical importance of individual patient improvements can be determined by assessing what patients themselves consider meaningful improvement using well-described methods. In contrast, the clinical meaningfulness of group differences must be determined by a multi-factorial evaluation of the benefits and risks of the treatment and of other available treatments for the condition in light of the primary goals of therapy. Such determinations must be conducted on a case-by-case basis, and are ideally informed by patients and their significant others, clinicians, researchers, statisticians, and representatives of society at large.

0 comments Cited 219 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Minimal perceptible clinical improvement with the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index questionnaire and global assessments in patients with osteoarthritis.

N Bellamy, J Bolognese, G. Davies … (2000)

To determine the minimal perceptible clinical improvement (MPCI) in patients with osteoarthritis (OA) with the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) questionnaire, and patient and investigator global assessment of disease status in randomized clinical trials for treatment of OA. Subjects with OA of the knee or hip were randomized to receive either rofecoxib 12.5 or 25 mg once daily, ibuprofen 800 mg 3 times daily, or placebo for 6 weeks. The WOMAC and global assessments were completed at baseline and Weeks 2, 4, and 6. A patient global assessment of response to therapy (0 to 4 scale) was used to "anchor" the WOMAC scores. MPCI was defined as the difference in mean change from baseline in WOMAC (100 mm normalized visual analog scale, VAS) between patients with 0 = "None" global response to therapy and patients with 1 = "Poor" global response to therapy. MPCI was determined to be 9.7, 9.3, and 10.0 mm for the WOMAC pain, physical function and stiffness subscales, respectively, and 11.1 mm for WOMAC question 1: Pain walking on a flat surface. The MPCI for the investigator was 0.4 with investigator assessment of disease status reported on a 0 to 4 Likert scale. Of note, the estimated MPCI for the WOMAC and investigator globals were similar irrespective of treatment, sex, age, or geographic region. In this analysis, mean changes of roughly 9 to 12 mm (100 mm normalized VAS) on WOMAC scales were perceptible changes to patients with hip and knee OA. A mean decrease of 0.4 in global disease status (0 to 4 Likert scale) as assessed by the investigator corresponded to the patients' MPCI. Understanding the minimal perceptible differences may permit a better assessment of the clinical relevance of therapeutic interventions in OA.

0 comments Cited 87 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Contributors

M.S. Corbett

Journal

Journal ID (nlm-ta): Osteoarthritis Cartilage

Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Osteoarthr. Cartil

Title: Osteoarthritis and Cartilage

Publisher: W.B. Saunders For The Osteoarthritis Research Society

ISSN (Print): 1063-4584

ISSN (Electronic): 1522-9653

Publication date PMC-release: 1 September 2013

Publication date (Print): September 2013

Volume: 21

Issue: 9

Pages: 1290-1298

Affiliations

[† ]University of York, UK

[‡ ]University of Leicester, UK

Author notes

[∗ ]Address correspondence and reprint requests to: M.S. Corbett, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, Heslington, York, YO10 5DD, UK. Tel: 44-01904-321072, fax: 44-01904-32104. mark.corbett@ 123456york.ac.uk

[a]

Now at: Perinatal Institute, Birmingham, UK.

Article

Publisher ID: YJOCA2894

DOI: 10.1016/j.joca.2013.05.007

PMC ID: 3769860

PubMed ID: 23973143

SO-VID: 1d6ba87f-d371-4cf4-866c-880db0293671

License:

This document may be redistributed and reused, subject to certain conditions.

History

Date received : 12 November 2012

Date accepted : 13 May 2013

Comments

Comment on this article

scite_

Cited by 63

See all cited by

Most referenced authors 887

See all reference authors

- Version 1