11
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Moxibustion is an Alternative in Treating Knee Osteoarthritis : The Evidence From Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

      research-article
      , MN, , MN, , MD, , MN, , MN, , MD, , MM
      Medicine
      Wolters Kluwer Health

      Read this article at

      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

          Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text

          Abstract

          Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) is a common disorder in elderly. There is no known cure for KOA, and thus therapeutic strategies of alleviating symptoms are increasingly emphasized. Moxibustion has been widely used to treat KOA; however, results are inconclusive. The aim of our study is to critically reassess the effects of moxibustion on KOA.

          We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Chinese Biomedical Literature database (CBM) through 25 November 2015. Two independent reviewers selected studies and abstracted information, as well as assessed the risk of bias using Cochrane risk of bias tool. The random-effects meta-analyses were performed based on abstracted data.

          We initially captured 163 citations and added 4 records through checking review. After critical appraisal, 13 RCTs were included. Meta-analyses indicated that moxibustion is not statistically different from oral drug in improving the response rate (MD = 1.09; 95% CI = 1.00, 1.20; P = 0.05), alleviating pain and improving physical function. Our meta-analysis also found that moxibustion is superior to usual care and sham moxibustion in reducing WOMAC score (MD = 7.56; 95% CI = 4.11, 11.00; P = 0.00), pain and function, as well as increasing QoL. Moreover, most AEs caused by moxibustion can heal without medical care.

          We concluded that moxibustion treatment is equal to the oral drugs and intra-articular injections and may be an alternative in treating patients with KOA.

          Related collections

          Most cited references10

          • 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.

          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.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Knee osteoarthritis prevalence, risk factors, pathogenesis and features: Part I.

            Osteoarthritis (OA) a common disease of aged population and one of the leading causes of disability. Incidence of knee OA is rising by increasing average age of general population. Age, weight, trauma to joint due to repetiting movements in particular squatting and kneeling are common risk factors of knee OA. Several factors including cytokines, leptin, and mechanical forces are pathogenic factors of knee OA. In patients with knee pain attribution of pain to knee OA should be considered with caution. Since a proportion of knee OA are asymptomatic and in a number of patients identification of knee OA is not possible due to low sensitivity of radiographic examination. In this review data presented in regard to prevalence, pathogenesis, risk factors.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Acetaminophen for osteoarthritis.

              Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common form of arthritis. Published guidelines and expert opinion are divided over the relative role of acetaminophen (also called paracetamol or Tylenol) and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) as first-line pharmacologic therapy. The comparative safety of acetaminophen and NSAIDs is also important to consider. This update to the original 2003 review includes nine additional RCTs. To assess the efficacy and safety of acetaminophen versus placebo and versus NSAIDs (ibuprofen, diclofenac, arthrotec, celecoxib, naproxen, rofecoxib) for treating OA. We searched MEDLINE (up to July 2005), EMBASE (2002-July 2005), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), ACP Journal Club, DARE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (all from 1994 to July 2005). Reference lists of identified RCTs and pertinent review articles were also hand searched. Published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy and safety of acetaminophen alone in OA were considered for inclusion. Pain, physical function and global assessment outcomes were reported. Results for continuous outcome measures were expressed as standardized mean differences (SMD). Dichotomous outcome measures were pooled using relative risk (RR) and the number needed to treat (NNT) was calculated. Fifteen RCTs involving 5986 participants were included in this review. Seven RCTs compared acetaminophen to placebo and ten RCTs compared acetaminophen to NSAIDs. In the placebo-controlled RCTs, acetaminophen was superior to placebo in five of the seven RCTs and had a similar safety profile. Compared to placebo, a pooled analysis of five trials of overall pain using multiple methods demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in pain (SMD -0.13, 95% CI -0.22 to -0.04), which is of questionable clinical significance. The relative percent improvement from baseline was 5% with an absolute change of 4 points on a 0 to 100 scale. The NNT to achieve an improvement in pain ranged from 4 to 16. In the comparator-controlled RCTs, acetaminophen was less effective overall than NSAIDs in terms of pain reduction, global assessments and in terms of improvements in functional status. No significant difference was found overall between the safety of acetaminophen and NSAIDs, although patients taking traditional NSAIDS were more likely to experience an adverse GI event (RR 1.47, (95% CI 1.08 to 2.00). 19% of patients in the traditional NSAID group versus 13% in the acetaminophen group experienced an adverse GI event. However, the median trial duration was only 6 weeks and it is difficult to assess adverse outcomes in a relatively short time period. The evidence to date suggests that NSAIDs are superior to acetaminophen for improving knee and hip pain in people with OA. The size of the treatment effect was modest, and the median trial duration was only six weeks, therefore, additional considerations need to be factored in when making the decision between using acetaminophen or NSAIDs. In OA subjects with moderate-to-severe levels of pain, NSAIDs appear to be more effective than acetaminophen.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Medicine (Baltimore)
                Medicine (Baltimore)
                MEDI
                Medicine
                Wolters Kluwer Health
                0025-7974
                1536-5964
                February 2016
                12 February 2016
                : 95
                : 6
                : e2790
                Affiliations
                From the Department of Nursing, Tianjin Hospital (G-MS); School of Nursing (XT, Y-HJ, Y-HD, HZ, X-LP); Graduate College (XT, Y-HD, HZ); Evidence-based Nursing Center, Tianjin University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Tianjin (Y-HJ); and Department of Oncology, Affiliated Hospital to Zunyi Medical University (J-GZ), Zunyi, China.
                Author notes
                Correspondence: Xiao-Li Pang, School of Nursing, Tianjin University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Nankai District, Tianjin, China (e-mail: tutcmtx@ 123456aliyun.com ).
                Jian-Guo Zhou, Department of Oncology, Affiliated Hospital to Zunyi Medical University, Zunyi, China (e-mail: jianguo.zhou@ 123456yahoo.com ).
                Article
                02790
                10.1097/MD.0000000000002790
                4753935
                26871839
                c30de6df-482a-4f21-a631-2fa298e3270b
                Copyright © 2016 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.

                This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License 4.0, where it is permissible to download, share and reproduce the work in any medium, provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0

                History
                : 23 December 2015
                : 14 January 2016
                : 17 January 2016
                Categories
                6900
                Research Article
                Systematic Reviewand Meta-Analysis
                Custom metadata
                TRUE

                Comments

                Comment on this article