Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38784696›Full record

ReviewAustralasian journal of ultrasound in medicine2024

Comparison of ultrasound guidance with landmark guidance for symptomatic benefits in knee, hip and hand osteoarthritis: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Win Min Oo, James Linklater, Md Abu Bakar Siddiq, Kai Fu, David J Hunter

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Australasian journal of ultrasound in medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. A stab in the dark.Australasian journal of ultrasound in medicine · 2024
    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.

Win Min OoDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Mandalay General Hospital University of Medicine Mandalay Myanmar.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4065-7395
James LinklaterCastlereagh Imaging Centre Sydney New South Wales Australia.
Md Abu Bakar SiddiqRheumatology Department, Royal North Shore Hospital, and Sydney Musculoskeletal Health, Kolling Institute, Faculty of Medicine and Health The University of Sydney Sydney New South Wales Australia.
Kai FuRheumatology Department, Royal North Shore Hospital, and Sydney Musculoskeletal Health, Kolling Institute, Faculty of Medicine and Health The University of Sydney Sydney New South Wales Australia.
David J HunterRheumatology Department, Royal North Shore Hospital, and Sydney Musculoskeletal Health, Kolling Institute, Faculty of Medicine and Health The University of Sydney Sydney New South Wales Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: More than half of the patients with moderate and severe osteoarthritis (OA) report unsatisfactory pain relief, requiring consideration of intra-articular (IA) injections as the second-line management. Ultrasound-guided IA injection has proven evidence of higher accuracy in administering IA injectates into the joints than landmark-guided or blind IA injections. However, questions remain about translating higher accuracy rates of ultrasound-guided injection into better clinical improvements. Therefore, we examined the symptomatic benefits (pain, function and patient satisfaction) of ultrasound-guided injection in knee, hip and hand OA compared with blind injections by synthesising a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCT). Methods: PubMed, Medline and Embase databases were searched for eligible studies from their inception to August 28, 2023. Results: Out of 295 records, our meta-analysis included four RCTs (338 patients with knee OA), demonstrating significant improvement in procedural pain [-0.89 (95% CI -1.25, -0.53)], pain at follow-up [-0.51 (95% CI -0.98, -0.04)] and function [1.30 (95% CI 0.86, 1.73)], favouring ultrasound guidance. One single study showed higher patient satisfaction with ultrasound guidance. Conclusion: Ultrasound-guided IA injection provided superior clinical outcomes compared with landmark-guided IA injection.

Indexed as

intra‐articular injectionlandmark injectionosteoarthritisultrasonographyultrasound

Identifiers

PMID38784696
PMCPMC11109994

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.