Complex Lifestyle and Psychological Intervention in Knee Osteoarthritis: Scoping Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

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.

Abstract

Knee osteoarthritis (OA) causes pain, disability and poor quality of life in the elderly. The primary aim was to identify and map out the current evidence for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on complex lifestyle and psychosocial interventions for knee OA. The secondary aim was to outline different components of complex lifestyle and psychosocial interventions. Our scoping review searched five databases from 2000 to 2021 where complex lifestyle or psychosocial interventions for patients with knee OA were compared to other interventions. Screening and data extraction were performed by two review authors independently and discrepancies resolved through consensus and in parallel with a third reviewer. A total of 38 articles were selected: 9 studied the effectiveness of psychological interventions; 11 were on self-management and lifestyle interventions; 18 looked at multifaceted interventions. This review highlights the substantial variation in knee OA interventions and the overall lack of quality in the current literature. Potential areas of future research, including identifying prognostic social factors, stratified care models, transdisciplinary care delivery and technology augmented interventions, have been identified. Further high-quality RCTs utilizing process evaluations and economic evaluation in accordance with the MRC guidelines are critical for the development of evidence-based knee OA programs globally.

Related collections

Most cited references 78

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation

Adrian Aldcroft, Chantelle Garritty, Simon Lewin … (2018)

Scoping reviews, a type of knowledge synthesis, follow a systematic approach to map evidence on a topic and identify main concepts, theories, sources, and knowledge gaps. Although more scoping reviews are being done, their methodological and reporting quality need improvement. This document presents the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist and explanation. The checklist was developed by a 24-member expert panel and 2 research leads following published guidance from the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network. The final checklist contains 20 essential reporting items and 2 optional items. The authors provide a rationale and an example of good reporting for each item. The intent of the PRISMA-ScR is to help readers (including researchers, publishers, commissioners, policymakers, health care providers, guideline developers, and patients or consumers) develop a greater understanding of relevant terminology, core concepts, and key items to report for scoping reviews.

0 comments Cited 7397 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach

Zachary Munn, Micah D J Peters, Cindy Stern … (2018)

Background Scoping reviews are a relatively new approach to evidence synthesis and currently there exists little guidance regarding the decision to choose between a systematic review or scoping review approach when synthesising evidence. The purpose of this article is to clearly describe the differences in indications between scoping reviews and systematic reviews and to provide guidance for when a scoping review is (and is not) appropriate. Results Researchers may conduct scoping reviews instead of systematic reviews where the purpose of the review is to identify knowledge gaps, scope a body of literature, clarify concepts or to investigate research conduct. While useful in their own right, scoping reviews may also be helpful precursors to systematic reviews and can be used to confirm the relevance of inclusion criteria and potential questions. Conclusions Scoping reviews are a useful tool in the ever increasing arsenal of evidence synthesis approaches. Although conducted for different purposes compared to systematic reviews, scoping reviews still require rigorous and transparent methods in their conduct to ensure that the results are trustworthy. Our hope is that with clear guidance available regarding whether to conduct a scoping review or a systematic review, there will be less scoping reviews being performed for inappropriate indications better served by a systematic review, and vice-versa.

0 comments Cited 2116 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide

T C Hoffmann, P P Glasziou, I Boutron … (2015)

Without a complete published description of interventions, clinicians and patients cannot reliably implement interventions that are shown to be useful, and other researchers cannot replicate or build on research findings. The quality of description of interventions in publications, however, is remarkably poor. To improve the completeness of reporting, and ultimately the replicability, of interventions, an international group of experts and stakeholders developed the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. The process involved a literature review for relevant checklists and research, a Delphi survey of an international panel of experts to guide item selection, and a face to face panel meeting. The resultant 12 item TIDieR checklist (brief name, why, what (materials), what (procedure), who provided, how, where, when and how much, tailoring, modifications, how well (planned), how well (actual)) is an extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement (item 5) and the SPIRIT 2013 statement (item 11). While the emphasis of the checklist is on trials, the guidance is intended to apply across all evaluative study designs. This paper presents the TIDieR checklist and guide, with an explanation and elaboration for each item, and examples of good reporting. The TIDieR checklist and guide should improve the reporting of interventions and make it easier for authors to structure accounts of their interventions, reviewers and editors to assess the descriptions, and readers to use the information.