No additional benefit of shortwave diathermy over exercise program for knee osteoarthritis in peri-/post-menopausal women: an equivalence trial

Exercise for osteoarthritis of the knee

BACKGROUND

Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is a major public health issue causing chronic pain, impaired physical function, and reduced quality of life. As there is no cure, self-management of symptoms via exercise is recommended by all current international clinical guidelines. This review updates one published in 2015.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to assess the effects of land-based exercise for people with knee osteoarthritis (OA) by comparing: 1) exercise versus attention control or placebo; 2) exercise versus no treatment, usual care, or limited education; 3) exercise added to another co-intervention versus the co-intervention alone.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and two trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov and World Health Organisation International Clinical Trials Registry Platform), together with reference lists, from the date of the last search (1st May 2013) until 4 January 2024, unrestricted by language.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated exercise for knee OA versus a comparator listed above. Our outcomes of interest were pain severity, physical function, quality of life, participant-reported treatment success, adverse events, and study withdrawals.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane for systematic reviews of interventions.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 139 trials (12,468 participants): 30 (3065 participants) compared exercise to attention control or placebo; 60 (4834 participants) compared exercise with usual care, no intervention or limited education; and 49 (4569 participants) evaluated exercise added to another intervention (e.g. weight loss diet, physical therapy, detailed education) versus that intervention alone. Interventions varied substantially in duration, ranging from 2 to 104 weeks. Most of the trials were at unclear or high risk of bias, in particular, performance bias (94% of trials), detection bias (94%), selective reporting bias (68%), selection bias (57%), and attrition bias (48%). Exercise versus attention control/placebo Compared with attention control/placebo, low-certainty evidence indicates exercise may result in a slight improvement in pain immediately post-intervention (mean 8.70 points better (on a scale of 0 to 100), 95% confidence interval (CI) 5.70 to 11.70; 28 studies, 2873 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence indicates exercise likely results in an improvement in physical function (mean 11.27 points better (on a scale of 0 to 100), 95% CI 7.64 to 15.09; 24 studies, 2536 participants), but little to no improvement in quality of life (mean 6.06 points better (on a scale of 0 to 100), 95% CI -0.13 to 12.26; 6 studies, 454 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence that exercise likely increases participant-reported treatment success (risk ratio (RR) 1.46, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.92; 2 studies 364 participants), and likely does not increase study withdrawals (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.26; 29 studies, 2907 participants). There was low-certainty evidence that exercise may not increase adverse events (RR 2.02, 95% CI 0.62 to 6.58; 11 studies, 1684 participants). Exercise versus no treatment/usual care/limited education Compared with no treatment/usual care/limited education, low-certainty evidence indicates exercise may result in an improvement in pain immediately post-intervention (mean 13.14 points better (on a scale of 0 to 100), 95% CI 10.36 to 15.91; 56 studies, 4184 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence indicates exercise likely results in an improvement in physical function (mean 12.53 points better (on a scale of 0 to 100), 95% CI 9.74 to 15.31; 54 studies, 4352 participants) and a slight improvement in quality of life (mean 5.37 points better (on a scale of to 100), 95% CI 3.19 to 7.54; 28 studies, 2328 participants). There was low-certainty evidence that exercise may result in no difference in participant-reported treatment success (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.71 to 2.49; 3 studies, 405 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence that exercise likely results in no difference in study withdrawals (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.20; 53 studies, 4408 participants). There was low-certainty evidence that exercise may increase adverse events (RR 3.17, 95% CI 1.17 to 8.57; 18 studies, 1557 participants). Exercise added to another co-intervention versus the co-intervention alone Moderate-certainty evidence indicates that exercise when added to a co-intervention likely results in improvements in pain immediately post-intervention compared to the co-intervention alone (mean 10.43 points better (on a scale of 0 to 100), 95% CI 8.06 to 12.79; 47 studies, 4441 participants). It also likely results in a slight improvement in physical function (mean 9.66 points better, 95% CI 7.48 to 11.97 (on a 0 to 100 scale); 44 studies, 4381 participants) and quality of life (mean 4.22 points better (on a 0 to 100 scale), 95% CI 1.36 to 7.07; 12 studies, 1660 participants) immediately post-intervention. There was moderate-certainty evidence that exercise likely increases participant-reported treatment success (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.18 to 2.24; 6 studies, 1139 participants), slightly reduces study withdrawals (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.97; 41 studies, 3502 participants), and slightly increases adverse events (RR 1.72, 95% CI 1.07 to 2.76; 19 studies, 2187 participants). Subgroup analysis and meta-regression We did not find any differences in effects between different types of exercise, and we found no relationship between changes in pain or physical function and the total number of exercise sessions prescribed or the ratio (between exercise group and comparator) of real-time consultations with a healthcare provider. Clinical significance of the findings To determine whether the results found would make a clinically meaningful difference to someone with knee OA, we compared our results to established 'minimal important difference' (MID) scores for pain (12 points on a 0 to 100 scale), physical function (13 points), and quality of life (15 points). We found that the confidence intervals of mean differences either did not reach these thresholds or included both a clinically important and clinically unimportant improvement.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found low- to moderate-certainty evidence that exercise probably results in an improvement in pain, physical function, and quality of life in the short-term. However, based on the thresholds for minimal important differences that we used, these benefits were of uncertain clinical importance. Participants in most trials were not blinded and were therefore aware of their treatment, and this may have contributed to reported improvements.

Systematic narrative review of modalities in physiotherapy for managing pain in hip and knee osteoarthritis: A review

Osteoarthritis (OA) affects 528 million individuals globally, predominantly in knee and hip joints, with a notable impact on females aged over 55, resulting in a substantial economic burden. However, the efficacy of modalities used in physiotherapy to manage OA pain for reducing the need for joint replacement remains an open question, and guidelines differ. Our systematic narrative review, drawing from reputable databases (e.g., PubMed, Cochrane, and CINAHL) with specific Mesh terms investigated evidence from 23 Randomized Controlled Trials (that included a control or a sham group in 30 different protocols) using therapeutic modalities like ultrasound, diathermy, and electrical stimulation for knee and hip OA pain, involving a total of 1055 subjects. We investigated the attainment of minimal clinically important differences in pain reduction, operationalized through a 20% decrement in the Western Ontario and McMaster University Arthritis Index or Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score. Our results indicated that 15 protocols out of 30 reach that level, but there were no statistical differences among modalities. Half of the protocol presented in the literature reached clinical efficiency but studies on hip remains scarce. We recommend a comprehensive, sequential, and multimodal intervention plan for individuals with joint OA with initial transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation and progressing to a 2-week protocol of continuous ultrasound, potentially combined with deep microwave diathermy. Long-term intervention involves the use of pulsed electrical stimulation. For hip OA, a cautious approach and discussions with healthcare providers about potential benefits of spinal cord nerve stimulation.

Adjunctive electrophysical therapies used in addition to land-based exercise therapy for osteoarthritis of the hip or knee: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objectives

To review evidence for effectiveness of electrophysical therapies (EPTs), used adjunctively with land-based exercise therapy, for hip or knee osteoarthritis (OA), compared with 1) placebo EPTs delivered with land-based exercise therapy or 2) land-based exercise therapy only.

Methods

Six databases were searched up to October 2023 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs)/quasi-RCTs comparing adjunctive EPTs alongside land-based exercise therapy versus 1) placebo EPTs alongside land-based exercise, or 2) land-based exercise in hip or knee OA. Outcomes included pain, function, quality of life, global assessment and adverse events. Risk of bias and overall certainty of evidence were assessed. We back-translated significant Standardised Mean Differences (SMDs) to common scales: 2 points/15% on a 0-10 Numerical Pain Rating Scale and 6 points/15% on the WOMAC physical function subscale.

Results

Forty studies (2831 patients) evaluated nine different EPTs for knee OA. Medium-term effects (up to 6 months) were evaluated in seven trials, and one evaluated long-term effects (>6 months). Adverse events were reported in one trial. Adjunctive laser therapy may confer short-term effects on pain (SMD -0.68, 95%CI -1.03 to -0.34; mean difference (MD) 1.18 points (95% CI -1.78 to -0.59) and physical function (SMD -0.60, 95%CI -0.88 to -0.34; MD 12.95 (95%CI -20.05 to -5.86)) compared to placebo EPTs, based on very low-certainty evidence. No other EPTs (TENS, interferential, heat, shockwave, shortwave, ultrasound, EMG biofeedback, NMES) showed clinically significant effects compared to placebo/exercise, or exercise only.

Conclusions

Very low-certainty evidence supports laser therapy used adjunctively with exercise for short-term improvement in pain and function. No other EPTs demonstrated clinically meaningful effects.

What are the unsupervised exercise adherence rates in clinical trials for knee osteoarthritis? A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Exercise is an effective intervention for knee osteoarthritis (OA), and unsupervised exercise programs should be a common adjunct to most treatments. However, it is unknown if current clinical trials are capturing information regarding adherence.

OBJECTIVE

To summarize the extent and quality of reporting of unsupervised exercise adherence in clinical trials for knee OA.

METHODS

Reviewers searched five databases (PubMed, CINAHL, Medline (OVID), EMBASE and Cochrane). Randomized controlled trials where participants with knee OA engaged in an unsupervised exercise program were included. The extent to which exercise adherence was monitored and reported was assessed and findings were subgrouped according to method for tracking adherence. The types of adherence measurement categories were synthesized. A quality assessment was completed using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scores.

RESULTS

Of 3622 abstracts screened, 176 studies met criteria for inclusion. PEDro scores for study quality ranged from two to ten (mean=6.3). Exercise adherence data was reported in 72 (40.9%) studies. Twenty-six (14.8%) studies only mentioned collection of adherence. Adherence rates ranged from 3.7 to 100% in trials that reported adherence. For 18 studies (10.2%) that tracked acceptable adherence, there was no clear superiority in treatment effect based on adherence rates.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical trials for knee OA do not consistently collect or report adherence with unsupervised exercise programs. Slightly more than half of the studies reported collecting adherence data while only 40.9% reported findings with substantial heterogeneity in tracking methodology. The clinical relevance of these programs cannot be properly contextualized without this information.

The Efficacy of Electromagnetic Diathermy for the Treatment of Musculoskeletal Disorders: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to establish the effect of electromagnetic diathermy therapies (e.g., shortwave, microwave, capacitive resistive electric transfer) on pain, function, and quality of life in treating musculoskeletal disorders.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review according to the PRISMA statement and Cochrane Handbook 6.3. The protocol has been registered in PROSPERO: CRD42021239466. The search was conducted in PubMed, PEDro, CENTRAL, EMBASE, and CINAHL.

RESULTS

We retrieved 13,323 records; 68 studies were included. Many pathologies were treated with diathermy against placebo, as a standalone intervention or alongside other therapies. Most of the pooled studies did not show significant improvements in the primary outcomes. While the analysis of single studies shows several significant results in favour of diathermy, all comparisons considered had a GRADE quality of evidence between low and very low.

CONCLUSIONS

The included studies show controversial results. Most of the pooled studies present very low quality of evidence and no significant results, while single studies have significant results with a slightly higher quality of evidence (low), highlighting a critical lack of evidence in the field. The results did not support the adoption of diathermy in a clinical context, preferring therapies supported by evidence.

Adjunctive therapies in addition to land-based exercise therapy for osteoarthritis of the hip or knee

BACKGROUND

Land-based exercise therapy is recommended in clinical guidelines for hip or knee osteoarthritis. Adjunctive non-pharmacological therapies are commonly used alongside exercise in hip or knee osteoarthritis management, but cumulative evidence for adjuncts to land-based exercise therapy is lacking.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of adjunctive therapies used in addition to land-based exercise therapy compared with placebo adjunctive therapy added to land-based exercise therapy, or land-based exercise therapy only for people with hip or knee osteoarthritis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, CINAHL, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) and clinical trials registries up to 10 June 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs of people with hip or knee osteoarthritis comparing adjunctive therapies alongside land-based exercise therapy (experimental group) versus placebo adjunctive therapies alongside land-based exercise therapy, or land-based exercise therapy (control groups). Exercise had to be identical in both groups. Major outcomes were pain, physical function, participant-reported global assessment, quality of life (QOL), radiographic joint structural changes, adverse events and withdrawals due to adverse events. We evaluated short-term (6 months), medium-term (6 to 12 months) and long-term (12 months onwards) effects.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence for major outcomes using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 62 trials (60 RCTs and 2 quasi-RCTs) totalling 6508 participants. One trial included people with hip osteoarthritis, one hip or knee osteoarthritis and 59 included people with knee osteoarthritis only. Thirty-six trials evaluated electrophysical agents, seven manual therapies, four acupuncture or dry needling, or taping, three psychological therapies, dietary interventions or whole body vibration, two spa or peloid therapy and one foot insoles. Twenty-one trials included a placebo adjunctive therapy. We presented the effects stratified by different adjunctive therapies along with the overall results. We judged most trials to be at risk of bias, including 55% at risk of selection bias, 74% at risk of performance bias and 79% at risk of detection bias. Adverse events were reported in eight (13%) trials. Comparing adjunctive therapies plus land-based exercise therapy against placebo therapies plus exercise up to six months (short-term), we found low-certainty evidence for reduced pain and function, which did not meet our prespecified threshold for a clinically important difference. Mean pain intensity was 5.4 in the placebo group on a 0 to 10 numerical pain rating scale (NPRS) (lower scores represent less pain), and 0.77 points lower (0.48 points better to 1.16 points better) in the adjunctive therapy and exercise therapy group; relative improvement 10% (6% to 15% better) (22 studies; 1428 participants). Mean physical function on the Western Ontario and McMaster (WOMAC) 0 to 68 physical function (lower scores represent better function) subscale was 32.5 points in the placebo group and reduced by 5.03 points (2.57 points better to 7.61 points better) in the adjunctive therapy and exercise therapy group; relative improvement 12% (6% better to 18% better) (20 studies; 1361 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence indicates that adjunctive therapies did not improve QOL (SF-36 0 to 100 scale, higher scores represent better QOL). Placebo group mean QOL was 81.8 points, and 0.75 points worse (4.80 points worse to 3.39 points better) in the placebo adjunctive therapy group; relative improvement 1% (7% worse to 5% better) (two trials; 82 participants). Low-certainty evidence (two trials; 340 participants) indicates adjunctive therapies plus exercise may not increase adverse events compared to placebo therapies plus exercise (31% versus 13%; risk ratio (RR) 2.41, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.27 to 21.90). Participant-reported global assessment was not measured in any studies. Compared with land-based exercise therapy, low-certainty evidence indicates that adjunctive electrophysical agents alongside exercise produced short-term (0 to 6 months) pain reduction of 0.41 points (0.17 points better to 0.63 points better); mean pain in the exercise-only group was 3.8 points and 0.41 points better in the adjunctive therapy plus exercise group (0 to 10 NPRS); relative improvement 7% (3% better to 11% better) (45 studies; 3322 participants). Mean physical function (0 to 68 WOMAC subscale) was 18.2 points in the exercise group and 2.83 points better (1.62 points better to 4.04 points better) in the adjunctive therapy plus exercise group; relative improvement 9% (5% better to 13% better) (45 studies; 3323 participants). These results are not clinically important. Mean QOL in the exercise group was 56.1 points and 1.04 points worse in the adjunctive therapies plus exercise therapy group (1.04 points worse to 3.12 points better); relative improvement 2% (2% worse to 5% better) (11 studies; 1483 participants), indicating no benefit (low-certainty evidence). Moderate-certainty evidence indicates that adjunctive therapies plus exercise probably result in a slight increase in participant-reported global assessment (short-term), with success reported by 45% in the exercise therapy group and 17% more individuals receiving adjunctive therapies and exercise (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.62) (5 studies; 840 participants). One study (156 participants) showed little difference in radiographic joint structural changes (0.25 mm less, 95% CI -0.32 to -0.18 mm); 12% relative improvement (6% better to 18% better). Low-certainty evidence (8 trials; 1542 participants) indicates that adjunctive therapies plus exercise may not increase adverse events compared with exercise only (8.6% versus 6.5%; RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.78 to 2.27).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Moderate- to low-certainty evidence showed no difference in pain, physical function or QOL between adjunctive therapies and placebo adjunctive therapies, or in pain, physical function, QOL or joint structural changes, compared to exercise only. Participant-reported global assessment was not reported for placebo comparisons, but there is probably a slight clinical benefit for adjunctive therapies plus exercise compared with exercise, based on a small number of studies. This may be explained by additional constructs captured in global measures compared with specific measures. Although results indicate no increased adverse events for adjunctive therapies used with exercise, these were poorly reported. Most studies evaluated short-term effects, with limited medium- or long-term evaluation. Due to a preponderance of knee osteoarthritis trials, we urge caution in extrapolating the findings to populations with hip osteoarthritis.

Knee Pain from Osteoarthritis: Pathogenesis, Risk Factors, and Recent Evidence on Physical Therapy Interventions

For patients presenting knee pain coming from osteoarthritis (OA), non-pharmacological conservative treatments (e.g., physical therapy interventions) are among the first methods in orthopedics and rehabilitation to prevent OA progression and avoid knee surgery. However, the best strategy for each patient is difficult to establish, because knee OA's exact causes of progression are not entirely understood. This narrative review presents (i) the most recent update on the pathogenesis of knee OA with the risk factors for developing OA and (ii) the most recent evidence for reducing knee pain with physical therapy intervention such as Diathermy, Exercise therapy, Ultrasounds, Knee Brace, and Electrical stimulation. In addition, we calculated the relative risk reduction in pain perception for each intervention. Our results show that only Brace interventions always reached the minimum for clinical efficiency, making the intervention significant and valuable for the patients regarding their Quality of Life. In addition, more than half of the Exercise and Diathermy interventions reached the minimum for clinical efficiency regarding pain level. This literature review helps clinicians to make evidence-based decisions for reducing knee pain and treating people living with knee OA to prevent knee replacement.

Measuring adherence to unsupervised, conservative treatment for knee osteoarthritis: A systematic review

Objective

To describe the measurement of adherence to unsupervised, conservative treatments for knee osteoarthritis (OA), including the methods of adherence measurement, parameters for assessing adherence and any values used to quantify adherence.

Methods

A systematic review with search terms related to knee OA, conservative treatments and adherence was conducted. The protocol was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (registration number CRD42020158188). Seven electronic databases (MEDLINE, AMED, EMBASE, CINAHL, SportDiscus, PsychINFO, PEDro) were searched from inception to February 02, 2021. Studies that included unsupervised, conservative treatment(s) for knee OA measuring adherence were eligible. Studies were independently screened for inclusion by two researchers. Data was extracted by one researcher and verified by a second researcher. Extracted data included: study type, population, type of treatment, adherence measurement methods, time-points, recall, parameters and values used to quantify adherence.

Results

Of 5033 references identified, 242 studies comprising of 261 treatments were included in the review. The majority of studies were randomised controlled trials investigating therapeutic exercise (n ​= ​107, 41.0%). The most common adherence measurement across all treatments was through self-reported diary (n ​= ​137, 52.5%) and the most common parameter was assessing the frequency of the treatment (n ​= ​79, 30.3%). Only a small number of studies provided values for quantifying satisfactory adherence (n ​= ​26, 9.3%).

Conclusion

There is a wide variety in the reporting of adherence to conservative treatments for knee OA and standardised methods for measuring and reporting adherence are needed. Developing a tool to measure adherence to conservative treatments for knee OA is a priority.

Acupuncture for chronic pain and depression in primary care: a programme of research

Background

There has been an increase in the utilisation of acupuncture in recent years, yet the evidence base is insufficiently well established to be certain about its clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. Addressing the questions related to the evidence base will reduce uncertainty and help policy- and decision-makers with regard to whether or not wider access is appropriate and provides value for money.

Aim

Our aim was to establish the most reliable evidence on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of acupuncture for chronic pain by drawing on relevant evidence, including recent high-quality trials, and to develop fresh evidence on acupuncture for depression. To extend the evidence base we synthesised the results of published trials using robust systematic review methodology and conducted a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of acupuncture for depression.

Methods and results

We synthesised the evidence from high-quality trials of acupuncture for chronic pain, consisting of musculoskeletal pain related to the neck and low back, osteoarthritis of the knee, and headache and migraine, involving nearly 18,000 patients. In an individual patient data (IPD) pairwise meta-analysis, acupuncture was significantly better than both sham acupuncture (p < 0.001) and usual care (p < 0.001) for all conditions. Using network meta-analyses, we compared acupuncture with other physical therapies for osteoarthritis of the knee. In both an analysis of all available evidence and an analysis of a subset of better-quality trials, using aggregate-level data, we found acupuncture to be one of the more effective therapies. We developed new Bayesian methods for analysing multiple individual patient-level data sets to evaluate heterogeneous continuous outcomes. An accompanying cost-effectiveness analysis found transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) to be cost-effective for osteoarthritis at a threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year when all trials were synthesised. When the analysis was restricted to trials of higher quality with adequate allocation concealment, acupuncture was cost-effective. In a RCT of acupuncture or counselling compared with usual care for depression, in which half the patients were also experiencing comorbid pain, we found acupuncture and counselling to be clinically effective and acupuncture to be cost-effective. For patients in whom acupuncture is inappropriate or unavailable, counselling is cost-effective.

Conclusion

We have provided the most robust evidence from high-quality trials on acupuncture for chronic pain. The synthesis of high-quality IPD found that acupuncture was more effective than both usual care and sham acupuncture. Acupuncture is one of the more clinically effective physical therapies for osteoarthritis and is also cost-effective if only high-quality trials are analysed. When all trials are analysed, TENS is cost-effective. Promising clinical and economic evidence on acupuncture for depression needs to be extended to other contexts and settings. For the conditions we have investigated, the drawing together of evidence on acupuncture from this programme of research has substantially reduced levels of uncertainty. We have identified directions for further research. Our research also provides a valuable basis for considering the potential role of acupuncture as a referral option in health care and enabling providers and policy-makers to make decisions based on robust sources of evidence.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN63787732.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Programme Grants for Applied Research programme.

Effects of short-wave therapy in patients with knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective:

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of short-wave therapy with sham or no intervention for the management of patients with knee osteoarthritis.

Methods:

We searched the following databases from their inception up to 26 October 2016: MEDLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, CINAHL and OpenGrey. Studies included randomized controlled trials compared with a sham or no intervention in patients with knee osteoarthritis. The results were calculated via standardized mean difference (SMD) and risk ratio for continuous variables outcomes as well as dichotomous variables, respectively. Heterogeneity was explored by the I2 test and inverse-variance random effects analysis was applied to all studies.

Results:

Eight trials (542 patients) met the inclusion criteria. The effect of short-wave therapy on pain was found positive (SMD, −0.53; 95% CI, −0.84 to −0.21). The pain subgroup showed that patients received pulse modality achieved clinical improvement (SMD, –0.83; 95% CI, –1.14 to −0.52) and the pain scale in female patients decreased (SMD, −0.53; 95% CI, −0.98 to −0.08). In terms of extensor strength, short-wave therapy was superior to the control group ( p < 0.05, I2 = 0%). There was no significant difference in the physical function (SMD, −0.16; 95% CI, −0.36 to 0.05). For adverse effects, there was no significant difference between the treatment and control group.

Conclusion:

Short-wave therapy is beneficial for relieving pain caused by knee osteoarthritis (the pulse modality seems superior to the continuous modality), and knee extensor muscle combining with isokinetic strength. Function is not improved.

Exercise for osteoarthritis of the knee

BACKGROUND

Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is a major public health issue because it causes chronic pain, reduces physical function and diminishes quality of life. Ageing of the population and increased global prevalence of obesity are anticipated to dramatically increase the prevalence of knee OA and its associated impairments. No cure for knee OA is known, but exercise therapy is among the dominant non-pharmacological interventions recommended by international guidelines.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether land-based therapeutic exercise is beneficial for people with knee OA in terms of reduced joint pain or improved physical function and quality of life.

SEARCH METHODS

Five electronic databases were searched, up until May 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) randomly assigning individuals and comparing groups treated with some form of land-based therapeutic exercise (as opposed to exercise conducted in the water) with a non-exercise group or a non-treatment control group.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three teams of two review authors independently extracted data, assessed risk of bias for each study and assessed the quality of the body of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. We conducted analyses on continuous outcomes (pain, physical function and quality of life) immediately after treatment and on dichotomous outcomes (proportion of study withdrawals) at the end of the study; we also conducted analyses on the sustained effects of exercise on pain and function (two to six months, and longer than six months).

MAIN RESULTS

In total, we extracted data from 54 studies. Overall, 19 (20%) studies reported adequate random sequence generation and allocation concealment and adequately accounted for incomplete outcome data; we considered these studies to have an overall low risk of bias. Studies were largely free from selection bias, but research results may be vulnerable to performance and detection bias, as only four of the RCTs reported blinding of participants to treatment allocation, and, although most RCTs reported blinded outcome assessment, pain, physical function and quality of life were participant self-reported.High-quality evidence from 44 trials (3537 participants) indicates that exercise reduced pain (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.39 to -0.59) immediately after treatment. Pain was estimated at 44 points on a 0 to 100-point scale (0 indicated no pain) in the control group; exercise reduced pain by an equivalent of 12 points (95% CI 10 to 15 points). Moderate-quality evidence from 44 trials (3913 participants) showed that exercise improved physical function (SMD -0.52, 95% CI -0.39 to -0.64) immediately after treatment. Physical function was estimated at 38 points on a 0 to 100-point scale (0 indicated no loss of physical function) in the control group; exercise improved physical function by an equivalent of 10 points (95% CI 8 to 13 points). High-quality evidence from 13 studies (1073 participants) revealed that exercise improved quality of life (SMD 0.28, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.40) immediately after treatment. Quality of life was estimated at 43 points on a 0 to 100-point scale (100 indicated best quality of life) in the control group; exercise improved quality of life by an equivalent of 4 points (95% CI 2 to 5 points).High-quality evidence from 45 studies (4607 participants) showed a comparable likelihood of withdrawal from exercise allocation (event rate 14%) compared with the control group (event rate 15%), and this difference was not significant: odds ratio (OR) 0.93 (95% CI 0.75 to 1.15). Eight studies reported adverse events, all of which were related to increased knee or low back pain attributed to the exercise intervention provided. No study reported a serious adverse event.In addition, 12 included studies provided two to six-month post-treatment sustainability data on 1468 participants for knee pain and on 1279 (10 studies) participants for physical function. These studies indicated sustainability of treatment effect for pain (SMD -0.24, 95% CI -0.35 to -0.14), with an equivalent reduction of 6 (3 to 9) points on 0 to 100-point scale, and of physical function (SMD -0.15 95% CI -0.26 to -0.04), with an equivalent improvement of 3 (1 to 5) points on 0 to 100-point scale.Marked variability was noted across included studies among participants recruited, symptom duration, exercise interventions assessed and important aspects of study methodology. Individually delivered programmes tended to result in greater reductions in pain and improvements in physical function, compared to class-based exercise programmes or home-based programmes; however between-study heterogeneity was marked within the individually provided treatment delivery subgroup.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

High-quality evidence indicates that land-based therapeutic exercise provides short-term benefit that is sustained for at least two to six months after cessation of formal treatment in terms of reduced knee pain, and moderate-quality evidence shows improvement in physical function among people with knee OA. The magnitude of the treatment effect would be considered moderate (immediate) to small (two to six months) but comparable with estimates reported for non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Confidence intervals around demonstrated pooled results for pain reduction and improvement in physical function do not exclude a minimal clinically important treatment effect. Since the participants in most trials were aware of their treatment, this may have contributed to their improvement. Despite the lack of blinding we did not downgrade the quality of evidence for risk of performance or detection bias. This reflects our belief that further research in this area is unlikely to change the findings of our review.

Comparison of the efficacy of ketoprofen phonophoresis, ultrasound, and short-wave diathermy in knee osteoarthritis

The present study aimed to compare the efficacy of three different deep heating modalities: phonophoresis (PH), short-wave diathermy (SWD), and ultrasound (US), in knee osteoarthritis. Patients who consented to participate in the study were randomly divided into the following three groups. Group 1 (n = 33) received PH, Group 2 (n = 33) received US, and Group 3 (n = 35) received SWD. These deep heating therapies were applied by the same therapist. Each therapy began with 20-min hot pack application. Each of the three physical therapy modalities was applied 5 days a week for 2 weeks (a total of 10 sessions). The patients were evaluated using visual analogue scale (VAS) at rest, 15-m walking time, and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) both before and after the treatment. Moreover, at the end of the treatment, both the physician and the patient made an overall evaluation, by rating the treatment efficacy. The results of the study showed that VAS, 15-m walking time, and WOMAC parameters were improved with all three deep heating modalities, and all the three modalities were effective. However, there was no significant difference between the three modalities in terms of efficacy. There was also no significant difference between the three groups in terms of post-treatment general evaluation of the physician and the patient. The present study is the first to suggest that choosing one of PH/US/SWD therapy options would provide effective results and none of them are superior to the others, and we believe that these findings will be a basis for further studies.

Effectiveness of thermal and athermal short-wave diathermy for the management of knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effectiveness of short-wave diathermy (SWD) treatment in the management of knee osteoarthritis (KOA) and to assess whether the effects are related to the induction of a thermal effect.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, CINAHL, PEDro, EMBASE, SPORTdiscus and Scholar Google. Included were trials that compared the use of SWD treatment in patients diagnosed with KOA with a control group (placebo SWD treatment or no intervention) and studies that used high-frequency electromagnetic energy (i.e., 27.12 MHz) with sufficient information regarding treatment dosage. Methodological quality of the included studies was assessed in accordance with the PEDro classification scale. A minimum of a 6/10 score was required for inclusion.

RESULTS

Seven studies were included in the final analysis. Treatment protocols (dosage, duration, number of treatments) varied extensively between studies. The meta-analysis of the studies with low mean power did not favour SWD treatment for pain reduction, while the results of studies employing some thermal effect were significant. No treatment effect on functional performance measures was determined.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis found small, significant effects on pain and muscle performance only when SWD evoked a local thermal sensation. However, the variability in the treatment protocols makes it difficult to draw definitive conclusions about the factors determining the effectiveness of SWD treatment. More research (using comparable protocols and outcome measurements) is needed to evaluate possible long-term effects of thermal SWD treatment and its cost effectiveness in patients with KOA.

Physiatric approaches to pain management in osteoarthritis: a review of the evidence of effectiveness

SUMMARY Osteoarthritis (OA), which is highly prevalent in the general population, is one of the leading causes of pain and physical disability. A large number of nonpharmacological interventions are available for the management of pain in patients with OA. These include education and self-management, weight reduction, various forms of exercises, physical agents/modalities, complementary therapies, manual therapy, unloading strategies such as braces and orthoses, and balneotherapy. The aim of this article is to assess the evidence of effectiveness of nonpharmacological interventions pertaining to physiatry to identify best practices for pain management in OA.

Pulsed shortwave treatment in women with knee osteoarthritis: a multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Several forms of conservative treatment have been the focus of many recent studies in knee osteoarthritis (OA). Among these techniques, the application of pulsed shortwave (PSW) treatment has been widely used, but the optimal dose and application time have not been well established. Objective The purposes of this study were: (1) evaluate the effect of PSW treatment in different doses and (2) to compare low-dose and high-dose PSW groups with control and placebo groups. Design This was a randomized clinical trial. Setting The study was conducted in the physical therapy department of 2 large urban hospitals. Patients One hundred twenty-one women (mean age=60 years, SD=9) with a diagnosis of knee OA participated in the study.

INTERVENTION AND MEASUREMENTS

Participants were distributed randomly into 4 groups: 35 participants did not receive any treatment (control group), 23 received a placebo treatment, 32 received low-dose PSW treatment (power of 14.5 W, treatment duration of 19 minutes, and total energy of 17 kJ), and 31 received high-dose PSW treatment (power of 14.5 W, treatment duration of 38 minutes, and total energy of 33 kJ). An 11-point numerical pain rating scale and the Knee Osteoarthritis Outcome Score were used to assess pain and function in 3 stages: at initial evaluation (pretreatment), immediately after treatment, and at 12-month follow-up.

RESULTS

The 4 groups were homogeneous prior to treatment with respect to demographics, pain, and functional scale data. The results demonstrated the short-term effectiveness of the PSW at low and high doses in patients with knee OA. Both treatment groups showed a significant reduction in pain and improvement in function compared with the control and placebo groups (effect size: range=20.0-23.4 for the low-dose PSW group and range=15.7-16.5 for the high-dose PSW group). There were no differences in results between PSW doses, although a low dose of PSW appeared to be more effective in the long term. Limitations These results were achieved without physical exercise, which could have positively influenced the results.

CONCLUSIONS

Pulsed shortwave treatment is an effective method for pain relief and improvement of function and quality of life in the short term in women with knee OA. On the basis of the results, application of PSW treatment is recommended in the female population with knee OA. However, conclusions regarding the 12-month follow-up should be analyzed carefully due to the high dropout rate.

Localized hyperthermia induced by microwave diathermy in osteoarthritis of the knee: a randomized placebo-controlled double-blind clinical trial

PURPOSE

To investigate the effects of hyperthermia on knee osteoarthritis (OA) in a randomized placebo-controlled double-blind clinical trial.

METHODS

Sixty-three patients with clinical evidence and radiographic confirmation of knee OA (Kellgren and Lawrence grades II and III) were randomized to either three 30-min sessions of hyperthermia per week for 4 weeks were administered using a 433.92 MHZ microwave generator or receive placebo treatment (machine not turned on) for same number of sessions. The Western Ontario McMaster Universities (WOMAC) questionnaire and the Timed Up and Go test (TUGT), a performance-based measure of function, were obtained at baseline (week 0), at the end of treatment (week 4), and at final follow-up (week 16).

RESULTS

The treatment group showed a significant decrease in the overall WOMAC score and each of its components, and in the TGUG test between the beginning (week 0) and the end of treatment (week 4), as well as at final follow-up (week 16). In the placebo group, a significant fall was only visible in the pain subscore at week 4. However, the mean improvement was only 1 point and was lost at final follow-up (P=0.332). There was a significant difference in pain -7.4 pre-post (P<0.01), -8.1 pre-follow-up (P<0.01); stiffness -4.6 pre-post (P<0.01), -5.1 pre-follow-up (P<0.01); activities daily living (ADL) -30.9 pre-post (P<0.01), -33.2 pre-follow-up (P<0.01); and WOMAC total score -43 pre-post (P<0.01), -46.4 pre-follow-up (P<0.01); and in TGUG test -2.4 pre-post (P<0.01), -2.9 pre-follow-up (P<0.01) between the treatment and placebo group over the whole length of the trial.

CONCLUSIONS

A 433.92 MHz microwave hyperthermia regimen showed beneficial effects in patients with moderate knee OA to reduce pain and to improve their physical function.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

I.