Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36475286›Full record

ReviewOsteoarthritis and cartilage open2022

Interventions for osteoarthritis pain: A systematic review with network meta-analysis of existing Cochrane reviews.

Geir Smedslund, Ingvild Kjeken, Frauke Musial, Joseph Sexton, Nina Østerås

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Osteoarthritis and cartilage open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
6.1field-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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
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.

Geir SmedslundNorwegian National Advisory Unit on Rehabilitation in Rheumatology, Division of Rheumatology and Research, Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Ingvild KjekenNorwegian National Advisory Unit on Rehabilitation in Rheumatology, Division of Rheumatology and Research, Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Frauke MusialNational Research Center in Complementary and Alternative Medicine, NAFKAM, Department of Community Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, UiT, The Arctic University, Norway.
Joseph SextonDivision of Rheumatology and Research, Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Nina ØsteråsNorwegian National Advisory Unit on Rehabilitation in Rheumatology, Division of Rheumatology and Research, Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Diakonhjemmet Hospital · NOUiT The Arctic University of Norway · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: To conduct a network meta-analysis comparing all treatments for osteoarthritis (OA) pain in the Cochrane Library. Design: The Cochrane Library and Epistemonikos were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about treatments for hip and knee OA. We constructed 17 broad categories, comprising drug treatments, exercise, surgery, herbs, orthotics, passive treatments, regenerative medicine, diet/weight loss, combined treatments, and controls. In addition to a full network analysis, we compared the direct/indirect effects, and studies with shorter-/longer follow-up. CINeMA software was used for assessing confidence in network meta-analysis estimates. Results: We included 35 systematic reviews including 445 RCTs. There were 153 treatments for OA. In total, 491 comparisons were related to knee OA, less on hip OA, and only nine on hand OA. Six treatment categories showed clinically significant effects favoring treatment over control on pain. "Diet/weight loss" and "Surgery" had effect sizes close to zero. The network as a whole was not coherent. Of 136 treatment comparisons, none were rated as high confidence, six as moderate, 13 as low, and 117 as very low. Conclusions: Direct comparison of different available treatment options for OA is desirable, however not currently feasible in practice, due to heterogeneous study populations and lack of clear descriptions of control interventions. We found that many treatments were effective, but since the network as a whole was not coherent and lacked high confidence in the treatment comparisons, we could not produce a ranking of effects.

Indexed as

ACR, American College of RheumatologyCINeMA, Confidence In the results of Network Meta-AnalysisDJW, Chinese Duhuo Jisheng WanEULAR, European Alliance of Associations for RheumatologyInterventionsNetwork meta-analysisNMAs, Network meta-analysesNon-pharmacologicalNSAIDs, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugsOA, OsteoarthritisOARSI, Osteoarthritis Research Society InternationalOsteoarthritisPainPharmacologicalPRP, platelet-rich plasmaQoL, Quality of LifeRoB, Cochrane risk of biasSKI 306X, Extract from a mixture of Clematis mandshurica, Trichosanthes kirilowii and Prunella vulgarisTENS, Transcutaneous nerve stimulationWOMAC, The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index

Identifiers

PMID36475286
PMCPMC9718209
OpenAlexW4213221801

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.