For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
9
views
30
references
 Top references
cited by
3
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      158
      similar
       All similar
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Management of patellofemoral joint osteoarthritis using biomechanical device therapy: a systematic review with meta-analysis

      research-article
      Author(s): 1 , 2 , 3 , , 4 , 3 , 5 , 6
      Publication date (Electronic):
      Journal: Systematic Reviews
      Publisher: BioMed Central

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          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

          Background

          Current clinical guidelines recommend conservative management including non-pharmacologic therapy prior to considering surgery for knee OA. There is a paucity of clinical trials investigating the use of biomechanical device therapies on those with patellofemoral joint osteoarthritis (PFJOA). The aim was to systematically review the effectiveness of biomechanical devices (bracing, taping, and footwear) in the management of symptomatic PFJOA.

          Method

          The Cochrane, PEDro, MEDLINE, CINAHL, AMED and EMBASE electronic databases were search from inception to October 31, 2020. Included studies were randomised controlled or clinical trials studying any form of biomechanical device therapy in the management of PFJOA in the English language. Studies included in the search were quality-appraised using the PEDro scoring system.

          Result

          Eleven studies were identified which included assessment of either patellar taping, or foot orthotics, knee bracing or combined physiotherapy treatments. Trial quality ranged from ‘poor’ through ‘fair’ to ‘good’. For patellar bracing, pooled analysis of two good quality randomised controlled trials showed no overall significant improvement on a visual analogue scale (VAS) (random effects (RE) standardised mean difference (SMD) = −0.42 (95%CI −1.12 to +0.29).

          Pooled data from the same two studies showed a non-significant improvement in favour of bracing assessed by the KOOS/WOMAC (RE SMD = −0.18 (95%CI −0.66 to +0.31). Two studies of ‘fair’ and ‘good’ quality applying patellar tape showed a significant reduction in pain immediately after application and after 4 days. A randomised trial of a foot orthotic showed a non-significant improvement in pain after 6 weeks with a between groups adjusted mean difference for maximum VAS of 21.9 mm (95% CI − 2.1 to 46.0) and 8.1 (95% CI− 6.9 to 23.1) for KOOS pain. A multimodal physiotherapy intervention (which included taping in two studies) showed a pooled significant improvement in VAS (SMD = −0.4; (95% CI −0.71 to −0.09) at 3 months compared to controls.

          Conclusion

          There is some good quality evidence that a combined physiotherapy approach significantly reduces short-term pain in those with PFJOA. Long-term effects of all interventions are still unknown, which indicates the need for further research to determine the longer term impact of all biomechanical devices on outcomes in symptomatic PFJOA.

          Supplementary Information

          The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13643-021-01708-3.

          Related collections

          Most cited references30

          • 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.
          Article 0 comments Cited 701 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Reliability of the PEDro scale for rating quality of randomized controlled trials.

            Christopher Maher, Catherine Sherrington, Robert D. Herbert … (2003)
            Assessment of the quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is common practice in systematic reviews. However, the reliability of data obtained with most quality assessment scales has not been established. This report describes 2 studies designed to investigate the reliability of data obtained with the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale developed to rate the quality of RCTs evaluating physical therapist interventions. In the first study, 11 raters independently rated 25 RCTs randomly selected from the PEDro database. In the second study, 2 raters rated 120 RCTs randomly selected from the PEDro database, and disagreements were resolved by a third rater; this generated a set of individual rater and consensus ratings. The process was repeated by independent raters to create a second set of individual and consensus ratings. Reliability of ratings of PEDro scale items was calculated using multirater kappas, and reliability of the total (summed) score was calculated using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC [1,1]). The kappa value for each of the 11 items ranged from.36 to.80 for individual assessors and from.50 to.79 for consensus ratings generated by groups of 2 or 3 raters. The ICC for the total score was.56 (95% confidence interval=.47-.65) for ratings by individuals, and the ICC for consensus ratings was.68 (95% confidence interval=.57-.76). The reliability of ratings of PEDro scale items varied from "fair" to "substantial," and the reliability of the total PEDro score was "fair" to "good."
            Article 0 comments Cited 681 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              American College of Rheumatology 2012 recommendations for the use of nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic therapies in osteoarthritis of the hand, hip, and knee.

              Marc Hochberg, Roy D Altman, Karine Toupin April … (2012)
              To update the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 2000 recommendations for hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA) and develop new recommendations for hand OA. A list of pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic modalities commonly used to manage knee, hip, and hand OA as well as clinical scenarios representing patients with symptomatic hand, hip, and knee OA were generated. Systematic evidence-based literature reviews were conducted by a working group at the Institute of Population Health, University of Ottawa, and updated by ACR staff to include additions to bibliographic databases through December 31, 2010. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach, a formal process to rate scientific evidence and to develop recommendations that are as evidence based as possible, was used by a Technical Expert Panel comprised of various stakeholders to formulate the recommendations for the use of nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic modalities for OA of the hand, hip, and knee. Both “strong” and “conditional” recommendations were made for OA management. Modalities conditionally recommended for the management of hand OA include instruction in joint protection techniques, provision of assistive devices, use of thermal modalities and trapeziometacarpal joint splints, and use of oral and topical nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), tramadol, and topical capsaicin. Nonpharmacologic modalities strongly recommended for the management of knee OA were aerobic, aquatic, and/or resistance exercises as well as weight loss for overweight patients. Nonpharmacologic modalities conditionally recommended for knee OA included medial wedge insoles for valgus knee OA, subtalar strapped lateral insoles for varus knee OA, medially directed patellar taping, manual therapy, walking aids, thermal agents, tai chi, self management programs, and psychosocial interventions. Pharmacologic modalities conditionally recommended for the initial management of patients with knee OA included acetaminophen, oral and topical NSAIDs, tramadol, and intraarticular corticosteroid injections; intraarticular hyaluronate injections, duloxetine, and opioids were conditionally recommended in patients who had an inadequate response to initial therapy. Opioid analgesics were strongly recommended in patients who were either not willing to undergo or had contraindications for total joint arthroplasty after having failed medical therapy. Recommendations for hip OA were similar to those for the management of knee OA. These recommendations are based on the consensus judgment of clinical experts from a wide range of disciplines, informed by available evidence, balancing the benefits and harms of both nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic modalities, and incorporating their preferences and values. It is hoped that these recommendations will be utilized by health care providers involved in the management of patients with OA. Copyright © 2012 by the American College of Rheumatology.
              Article 0 comments Cited 284 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Michael J. Callaghan:
                ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3540-2838
                michael.callaghan@mmu.ac.uk
                Journal
                Journal ID (nlm-ta): Syst Rev
                Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Syst Rev
                Title: Systematic Reviews
                Publisher: BioMed Central (London )
                ISSN (Electronic): 2046-4053
                Publication date (Electronic): 9 June 2021
                Publication date PMC-release: 9 June 2021
                Publication date Collection: 2021
                Volume: 10
                Electronic Location Identifier: 173
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.25627.34, ISNI 0000 0001 0790 5329, Faculty of Health and Education, Department of Health Professions, , Manchester Metropolitan University, ; Manchester, UK
                [2 ]GRID grid.498924.a, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, ; Manchester, UK
                [3 ]GRID grid.5379.8, ISNI 0000000121662407, Centre for Epidemiology Versus Arthritis, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, , The University of Manchester, ; Manchester, UK
                [4 ]GRID grid.411255.6, Therapies Department, , Aintree University Hospital, ; Liverpool, UK
                [5 ]GRID grid.498924.a, NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, , Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, ; Manchester, UK
                [6 ]GRID grid.412346.6, ISNI 0000 0001 0237 2025, Department of Rheumatology, , Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust, ; Manchester, UK
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3540-2838
                Article
                Publisher ID: 1708
                DOI: 10.1186/s13643-021-01708-3
                PMC ID: 8191025
                SO-VID: b8e25e9f-612d-4bd9-8bfd-3d105b375dbf
                Copyright © © The Author(s) 2021
                License:

                Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

                History
                Date received : 2 March 2020
                Date accepted : 18 May 2021
                Categories
                Subject: Research
                Custom metadata
                issue-copyright-statement © The Author(s) 2021

                ScienceOpen disciplines: Public health
                Data availability:
                ScienceOpen disciplines: Public health

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content158

                See all similar

                Cited by3

                See all cited by

                Most referenced authors382

                See all reference authors