Level A· Stronger Clinical EvidenceMeta-analysisEurope PMCOpen access

Comparative effectiveness of nonsurgical interventions in the treatment of patients with knee osteoarthritis: A PRISMA-compliant systematic review and network meta-analysis

Naja M., Fernandez De Grado G., Favreau H., Scipioni D., Benkirane-Jessel N., Musset AM.

Meta-analysis on Knee Osteoarthritis, Osteoarthritis, Chronic Inflammation, published in Medicine (Baltimore) (2021) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level A· Stronger Clinical EvidenceEvidence level of this study

Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.

  • Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
  • Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
  • Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
  • Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
  • Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
Read the A–D evidence level guide

This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.

Study type
Meta-analysis
Journal
Medicine (Baltimore) (2021)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
34889254
PMCID
PMC8663883
DOI
10.1097/md.0000000000028067
Citations
15

Abstract (original English)

Background To find out, based on the available recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs), if the nonsurgical interventions commonly used for knee osteoarthritis patients are valid and quantify their efficiency. Methods The database of MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched for RCTs evaluating nonsurgical treatment strategies on patients with mild to moderate knee osteoarthritis. A Bayesian random-effects network meta-analysis was performed. The primary outcome was the mean change from baseline in the Western Ontario and McMaster university (WOMAC) total score at 12 months. Raw mean differences with 95% credibility intervals were calculated. Treatments were ranked by probabilities of each treatment to be the best. Results Thirteen trials assessed 7 strategies with WOMAC at 12 months: injection of platelet rich plasma (PRP), corticosteroids, mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs), hyaluronic acid, ozone, administration of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs with or without the association of physiotherapy. For treatment-specific effect size, a greater association with WOMAC decrease was found significantly for MSCs (mean difference, -28.0 [95% CrI, -32.9 to -22.4]) and PRP (mean difference, -19.9 [95% CrI, -24.1 to -15.8]). Rank probabilities among the treatments indicated that MSCs had a much higher probability (P = .91) of being the best treatment compared with other treatments, while PRP r

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.

Evidence level

Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.

How we grade evidence
HumansOsteoarthritis, KneeHyaluronic AcidTreatment OutcomeInjections, Intra-ArticularPlatelet-Rich Plasma

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.

Related research