Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36326763›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2022

Comparison of Face-to-Face vs Digital Delivery of an Osteoarthritis Treatment Program for Hip or Knee Osteoarthritis.

Therese Jönsson, Andrea Dell'Isola, L Stefan Lohmander, Philippe Wagner, Anna Cronström

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.6field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Patient acceptable symptom state and treatment failure threshold values for work productivity and activity Impairment and EQ-5D-5L in osteoarthritis.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2024
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Therese JönssonDivision of Sport Sciences, Department of Health Sciences, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Andrea Dell'IsolaClinical Epidemiology Unit, Department of Clinical Sciences Lund, Orthopedics, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
L Stefan LohmanderClinical Epidemiology Unit, Department of Clinical Sciences Lund, Orthopedics, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Philippe WagnerCentre for Clinical Research, Uppsala University, Västerås, Sweden.
Anna CronströmDivision of Sport Sciences, Department of Health Sciences, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Lund University · SEUppsala University · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Digital care platforms have been introduced, but there is limited evidence for their efficacy compared with traditional face-to-face treatment modalities. Objective: To compare mean pain reduction among individuals with osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee or hip who underwent face-to-face vs digital first-line intervention. Design, Setting, and Participants: This registry-based cohort study included all persons with knee or hip osteoarthritis who participated in structured first-line treatment for osteoarthritis in a primary care setting in Sweden. Inclusion criteria were as follows: the treatment was delivered face-to-face or digitally between April 1, 2018, and December 31, 2019; patients provided 3-month follow-up data for pain; and patients had program adherence of at least 80%. Data analysis was conducted in March 2021. Exposures: Participants completed a 3-month intervention, including education and exercise for hip or knee osteoarthritis, with program adherence of 80% or higher, delivered face-to-face or by a digital application. Main Outcomes and Measures: Difference in change in joint pain (11-point numeric rating scale, with 0 indicating no pain and 10, the worst possible pain) between baseline and 3-month follow-up between the 2 intervention modalities. A minimal clinically important difference in pain change between groups was predefined as 1 point. Secondary outcomes were walking difficulties, health-related quality of life, willingness to undergo joint surgery, and fear avoidance behavior. Results: A total of 6946 participants (mean [SD] age, 67 [9] years; 4952 [71%] women; 4424 [64%] knee OA; 2504 [36%] hip OA) were included, with 4237 (61%) receiving face-to-face treatment and 2709 (39%) receiving digital treatment. Both the face-to-face (mean change, -1.10 [95% CI -1.17 to -1.02] points) and digital interventions (mean change, -1.87 [95% CI, -1.94 to -1.79] points) resulted in a clinically important pain reduction at 3 months. Participants in the digitally delivered intervention experienced a larger estimated improvement at 3 months (adjusted mean difference, -0.93 [95% CI, -1.04 to -0.81] points). Results of secondary outcomes were broadly consistent with main outcome. Conclusions and Relevance: This Swedish national registry-based cohort study showed that people with knee or hip OA participating in first-line intervention experienced clinically relevant improvements in pain, whether delivered face-to-face or digitally. The increased benefit of digital delivery compared with face-to-face delivery was of uncertain clinical importance.

Indexed as

Osteoarthritis, HipOsteoarthritis, KneeAgedCohort StudiesExercise TherapyFemaleHumansMalePainQuality of Life

Identifiers

PMID36326763
PMCPMC9634502
OpenAlexW4308373391

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.