OSTEOARTHRITIS
Physical therapy interventions for knee pain secondary to osteoarthritis: A systematic review
This report has been verified
by one or more authors of the
original publication.
この研究はハイインパクトの可能性があります。
OEのAI駆動型ハイインパクト指標は、論文が掲載されたジャーナルと論文自体の科学的内容の両方からのシグナルを統合することで、論文が持つ可能性の高い影響力を推定します。
最先端の自然言語処理を用いて開発されたOEハイインパクトモデルは、ジャーナルのインパクトファクターのみよりも、研究の将来の引用実績をより正確に予測します。
これにより、臨床的に意義のある研究をより早く認識することが可能になり、読者は将来の診療を形成する可能性が最も高い論文に集中することができます。
OrthoEvidence Journal (OE Journal) - ACE Report
OE Journal. 2013;1(11):177 Ann Intern Med. 2012 Nov 6;157(9):632-44. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-157-9-201211060-00007This meta-analysis and systematic review included 193 studies (84 randomized controlled trials were assessed in the meta-analysis) comparing physical therapy to a control group in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA). The most effective interventions were ultrasonography, and aerobic, aquatic, strengthening, and proprioception exercise. Education, orthotics, taping, tai chi, and pulsed electromagnetic fields had no clinically significant effect on any of the patient-centered or functional outcomes of interest. Few adverse events occurred in the studies.
Were the search methods used to find evidence (original research) on the primary question or questions stated?
Was the search for evidence reasonably comprehensive?
Were the criteria used for deciding which studies to include in the overview reported?
Was the bias in the selection of studies avoided?
Were the criteria used for assessing the validity of the included studies reported?
Was the validity of all of the studies referred to in the text assessed with use of appropriate criteria (either in selecting the studies for inclusion or in analyzing the studies that were cited)?
Were the methods used to combine the findings of the relevant studies (to reach a conclusion) reported?
Were the findings of the relevant studies combined appropriately relative to the primary question that the overview addresses?
Were the conclusions made by the author or authors supported by the data and or analysis reported in the overview?
How would you rate the scientific quality of this evidence?
はい = 1
不確実＝0.5
無関係 = 0
いいえ = 0
報告基準評価では、著者が出版物内で試験の方法論的特徴や試験特性を報告する際の透明性を評価します。評価は以下の5つのカテゴリーに分類されます。
4/4
Introduction
4/4
Accessing Data
4/4
Analysing Data
4/4
Results
3/4
Discussion
Detsky AS, Naylor CD, O'Rourke K, McGeer AJ, L'Abbé KA. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45:255-65
Fragility Indexは、重要な所見の解釈を助けるツールで、結果の強さの尺度を提供します。Fragility Indexは、その所見が有意でなくなるために、二項対立の結果に追加する必要がある連続した事象の数を表します。数値が小さいほど弱い所見を表し、数値が大きいほど強い所見を表します。
なぜ今この研究が必要なのですか？
Although osteoarthritis (OA) is already one of the foremost causes of disability among noninstitutionalized adults today, its prevalence continues to increase as the population ages. Nonsurgical treatments for OA such as physical therapy are prescribed in the hopes of reducing pain and disability, and improving function and quality of life. This meta-analysis and systematic review aimed to be the first to evaluate the effectiveness of different exercise types and nonsurgical interventions in order to determine which physical therapy treatments are best for patients with osteoarthritis of the knee.
主な研究課題は何ですか？
Is physical therapy more effective than a control treatment with respect to patient-centered outcomes, function, and complications in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee?
重要な知見は？
- Education, orthotics, taping, tai chi, and pulsed electromagnetic fields had no clinically significant effect on any of the outcomes of interest
- There was a significant reduction in pain when patients received proprioception exercise (4 studies; SMD, -0.71 [95% CI, -1.31 to 0.11]) or diathermy (5 studies; significant at 1 month only; SMD, -0.53 [CI, -0.96 to -0.10]); the two interventions did not demonstrate significant effects for any other outcomes
- Massage led to a significant improvement in composite function (3 studies; SMD, -0.55 [CI, -0.93 to -0.18])
- Aquatic exercise resulted in significantly reduced disability (3 studies; SMD, -0.28 [CI, -0.51 to -0.05])
- According to 11 studies, aerobic exercise significantly reduced long term pain (SMD, -0.21 [CI, -0.35 to -0.08]; this was not clinically significant), disability (SMD, -0.21 [CI, -0.37 to -0.04]), composite function within 3 months (WOMAC function score -15.4 [CI -24.8 to -5.92]), and gait function over 12 months (walking speed difference -0.11 m/s [CI, -0.17 to -0.05])
- Results from 9 studies demonstrated that strengthening exercise resulted in clinically significant reduction in pain (SMD, 0.68 [CI, -1.23 to -0.14]) and improvement in composite function (SMD, -1.00 [CI, -1.95 to 0.05])
- electrical stimulation significantly improved global assessment scores in two studies and muscle strength at 3 months in two studies (values not provided)
- According to 6 studies, ultrasonography led to clinically significant improvement in pain (SMD, -0.74 [CI, 0.95 to -0.53]), composite function (SMD, -1.14 [CI, 1.85 to -0.42]), and gait function (SMD, -1.48 [CI, 2.08 to -0.89])
最も覚えておくべきことは？
Aerobic, aquatic, strengthening, and proprioception exercise, as well as ultrasonography were shown to be effective in improving patient-centered outcomes and/or function.
それが私の患者ケアにどのように影響するか？
This study demonstrated with low-strength evidence that aerobic and aquatic exercise improved disability and that aerobic exercise, strengthening exercise, and ultrasonography reduced pain and improved function. However, further investigation is required based on the limited evidence for individualized treatment decisions.
免責事項
このページに記載されている内容は、情報提供のみを目的としたものであり、専門的な医療アドバイス、診断、治療の代わりとなるものではありません。治療が必要な場合は、必ず医師の診断を仰ぐか、最寄りの救急外来を受診してください。このページに記載されている内容に関して個人が表明した意見、信念、見解は、OrthoEvidenceの意見、信念、見解を反映するものではありません。
0の4 月間無料記事のロック解除
