Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36865988›Full record

ReviewOsteoarthritis and cartilage open2023

Genicular artery embolization for treatment of knee osteoarthritis pain: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Bedros Taslakian, Larry E Miller, Tarub S Mabud, William Macaulay, Jonathan Samuels, Mukundan Attur, Erin F Alaia, Richard Kijowski, Ryan Hickey, Akhilesh K Sista

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

Review in Osteoarthritis and cartilage open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
49citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
17.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

49 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 70 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Bedros TaslakianDivision of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Department of Radiology, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY, United States.
Larry E MillerMiller Scientific, Johnson City, TN, United States.
Tarub S MabudDivision of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Department of Radiology, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY, United States.
William MacaulayDivision of Adult Reconstruction, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY, United States.
Jonathan SamuelsDivision of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY, United States.
Mukundan AtturDivision of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY, United States.
Erin F AlaiaDivision of Musculoskeletal Radiology, Department of Radiology, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY, United States.
Richard KijowskiDivision of Musculoskeletal Radiology, Department of Radiology, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY, United States.
Ryan HickeyDivision of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Department of Radiology, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY, United States.
Akhilesh K SistaDivision of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Department of Radiology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, United States.
NYU Langone Health · USCornell University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: Genicular artery embolization (GAE) is a novel, minimally invasive procedure for treatment of knee osteoarthritis (OA). This meta-analysis investigated the safety and effectiveness of this procedure. Design: Outcomes of this systematic review with meta-analysis were technical success, knee pain visual analog scale (VAS; 0-100 scale), WOMAC Total Score (0-100 scale), retreatment rate, and adverse events. Continuous outcomes were calculated as the weighted mean difference (WMD) versus baseline. Minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and substantial clinical benefit (SCB) rates were estimated in Monte Carlo simulations. Rates of total knee replacement and repeat GAE were calculated using life-table methods. Results: In 10 groups (9 studies; 270 patients; 339 knees), GAE technical success was 99.7%. Over 12 months, the WMD ranged from -34 to -39 at each follow-up for VAS score and -28 to -34 for WOMAC Total score (all p ​< ​0.001). At 12 months, 78% met the MCID for VAS score; 92% met the MCID for WOMAC Total score, and 78% met the SCB for WOMAC Total score. Higher baseline knee pain severity was associated with greater improvements in knee pain. Over 2 years, 5.2% of patients underwent total knee replacement and 8.3% received repeat GAE. Adverse events were minor, with transient skin discoloration as the most common (11.6%). Conclusions: Limited evidence suggests that GAE is a safe procedure that confers improvement in knee OA symptoms at established MCID thresholds. Patients with greater knee pain severity may be more responsive to GAE.

Indexed as

GAEGenicular artery embolizationKneeOsteoarthritisPain

Identifiers

PMID36865988
PMCPMC9971280
OpenAlexW4319320106

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.