Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36474674›Full record

ArticleOsteoarthritis and cartilage open2020

Change in pain and its relation to change in activity in osteoarthritis.

Matthew J Parkes, Richard K Jones, Suzanne C Carter, Anmin Liu, Michael J Callaghan, David T Felson

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Osteoarthritis and cartilage open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 34% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
  3. 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

6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Matthew J ParkesCentre for Epidemiology Versus Arthritis, Centre for Musculoskeletal Research, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Richard K JonesNIHR Manchester Musculoskeletal Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK.
Suzanne C CarterCentre for Epidemiology Versus Arthritis, Centre for Musculoskeletal Research, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Anmin LiuSchool of Health Sciences, University of Salford, Salford, UK.
Michael J CallaghanFaculty of Health, Psychology, and Social Care, Department of Health Professions, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, UK.
David T FelsonCentre for Epidemiology Versus Arthritis, Centre for Musculoskeletal Research, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust · GBManchester Academic Health Science Centre · GBUniversity of Manchester · GBUniversity of Salford · GB

Funding

Research and Evaluation Support Core Unit (RESCU Core)P30AR072571 · NIAMS · BOSTON UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CAMPUS · PI TUHINA NEOGI · 2019 to 2026
$6.9M
NIAMS NIH HHS P30 AR072571
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: Trials testing promising interventions in knee osteoarthritis (OA) often fail to show pain reductions. This may be due to change in activity whereby a person's pain decreases, leading them to increase their activity levels, in turn increasing pain back to baseline levels. Using data from a trial of a beneficial treatment for knee pain, we explored whether activity changes might mask a treatment's effect on pain, by looking at whether activity levels increased with effective treatment and whether change in activity level related to change in pain. Design: During the InRespond trial (ISRCTN55059760) participants wore an accelerometer for 7 days before and during treatments. We assessed change in pain on treatment using scores for overall knee pain and pain in a nominated pain-aggravating activity both in the last week and evaluated change in different types of activity using accelerometer data. Principal components analysis tested whether change in activity and pain outcomes were correlated and created composites combining them. We then tested whether activity, pain or the composites showed a treatment effect, and examined their responsiveness. Results: In the 61 participants (mean age 64.5 years, 38% women, mean overall knee pain score 5.08 (0-10)), activity levels mostly decreased during the trial. Principal component analyses suggested that pain and activity did not correlate highly, loading on different components. Treatment that showed significant effects on pain did not show similar effects on either activity (e.g. the active treatment had a slightly greater reduction in total steps taken than the control treatment (difference 1942.6 steps/week, p = 0.42) nor on composites combining activity and pain. Pain outcomes were the most responsive; static loading (standing) outcomes were the most responsive activity outcome. Conclusion: We found no evidence to support the hypothesis that activity levels increase during effective OA treatment and might account for the negligible pain effects of OA treatments.

Indexed as

AccelerometerOutcome researchPainPhysical activitySensitivity to change

Identifiers

PMID36474674
PMCPMC9718134
OpenAlexW3016789116

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.