Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33097031›Full record

ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2020

High molecular weight Intraarticular hyaluronic acid for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis: a network meta-analysis.

Charles D Hummer, Felix Angst, Wilson Ngai, Craig Whittington, Sophie S Yoon, Lionel Duarte, Colleen Manitt, Emil Schemitsch

Open access · goldAbstract readNetwork Meta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.1field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 51 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. [Treatment of unicompartmental osteoarthritis of the knee].Orthopadie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2023
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Should intra-articular hyaluronic acid be used routinely for knee osteoarthritis pain?PM & R : the journal of injury, function, and rehabilitation · 2022
    Article
  20. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Charles D HummerPremier Orthopaedics and Sports Medicine, 300 Evergreen Drive, Suite 200, Glen Mills, PA, 19342, USA. chummer3@premierortho.com.
Felix AngstResearch Department, Rehabilitation Clinic ('RehaClinic'), Bad Zurzach, Switzerland.
Wilson NgaiSanofi, Global Medical, Bridgewater, NJ, USA.
Craig WhittingtonSanofi, Global Medical, Bridgewater, NJ, USA.
Sophie S YoonDoctor Evidence, Santa Monica, CA, USA.
Lionel DuarteDoctor Evidence, Santa Monica, CA, USA.
Colleen ManittInternational Centre for Professional Development in Health and Medicine, Québec, Canada.
Emil SchemitschLondon Health Sciences Centre, London, Ontario, Canada.
Sanofi (United States) · USInternational Development Research Centre · CALondon Health Sciences Centre · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe 2013 American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) guidelines made strong recommendations against intraarticular hyaluronic acid (IAHA) for patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA), as evidence supporting improvements in pain did not meet the minimal clinically important improvement (MCII) threshold. However, there may be important distinctions based on IAHA molecular weight (MW). Hence our objective was to evaluate the efficacy of IAHAs in knee OA based on molecular weight.

methodsRandomized controlled trials were searched within MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL and selected based on AAOS criteria. A pain measure hierarchy and longest follow-up were used to select one effect size from each trial. Mean differences between interventions were converted to standardized mean differences (SMDs) and incorporated into a random-effects Bayesian network meta-analysis. High MW (HMW) was defined as ≥6000 kDa, and low MW (LMW) as < 750 kDa.

resultsHMW IAHA was associated with a statistically significant and possibly clinically significant improvement in pain (SMD - 0.57 (95% credible interval [Crl]: - 1.04, - 0.11), exceeding the - 0.50 MCII threshold. LMW IAHA had a lesser, non-significant improvement (- 0.23, 95% Crl: - 0.67, 0.20). Back-transforming SMDs to the WOMAC pain scale indicated a 14.65 (95% CI: 13.93, 15.62) point improvement over IA placebo, substantially better than the 8.3 AAOS MCII threshold.

conclusionsUnlike LMW IAHA, HMW IAHA exceeded the MCII threshold for pain relief, suggesting that improvements can be subjectively perceived by the treated patient. Amalgamation of LMW and HMW may have blurred the benefits of IAHA in the past, leading to negative recommendations. Differentiation according to MW offers refined insight for treatment with IAHA.

Indexed as

Hyaluronic AcidOsteoarthritis, KneeBayes TheoremHumansInjections, Intra-ArticularMolecular WeightHyaluronic AcidHyaluronic acidKnee osteoarthritisMeta-analysisMolecular weight

Identifiers

PMID33097031
PMCPMC7585216
OpenAlexW3094070475

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.