Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39801867›Full record

ArticleJournal of orthopaedic case reports2025

Data Insights on the Risks of Local Heat and Massage in Gouty Arthritis Treatment.

Shivam Mehra, Kamal Mehra, Nindiya Kapoor Mehra, Sachin Yashwant Kale, Bharat Veer Manchanda

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of orthopaedic case reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

Shivam MehraMehra Hospital and Research Institute, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India.
Kamal MehraMehra Hospital and Research Institute, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India.
Nindiya Kapoor MehraMehra Hospital and Research Institute, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India.
Sachin Yashwant KaleDepartment of Orthopaedics, Padmashree Dr. D.Y. Patil School of Medicine, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.
Bharat Veer ManchandaArthritis and Breast Care Centre, Kurukshetra, Haryana, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Gouty arthritis is a common inflammatory condition caused by the deposition of uric acid crystals in the joints, leading to intense pain, swelling, and functional impairment. Thermal therapies, including hot and cold fomentation, are often used as adjunctive treatments for managing inflammation and pain in various musculoskeletal conditions. However, the efficacy of these therapies in acute gout remains underexplored. This study aims to compare the effects of hot fomentation versus cold fomentation in patients experiencing acute gout flares, assessing pain reduction, swelling, joint mobility, and overall patient satisfaction. Materials and Methods: A randomized controlled trial was conducted with 2,400 patients diagnosed with acute gouty arthritis, divided into two equal groups: Group A received hot fomentation (38°C-42°C) and Group B received cold fomentation (5°C-10°C). Both interventions were applied twice daily for 20 min over 5 days, alongside standard gout care. Pain intensity was measured using the visual analog scale (VAS), while joint circumference, range of motion, and patient satisfaction were recorded at baseline, day 3, and day 5. Statistical analyses compared outcomes between the two groups. Results: Cold fomentation significantly reduced pain intensity (VAS score reduction of 68% by day 5) compared to hot fomentation (26% reduction, P < 0.001). Joint swelling decreased by 25% in the cold group versus 5% in the hot group, with cold therapy also leading to greater improvements in joint mobility (average increase of 15° vs. 5°, P < 0.01). Notably, 35% of patients in the hot fomentation group experienced flare-ups, compared to only 2% in the cold fomentation group (P < 0.001). Patient satisfaction was also higher in the cold group, with 85% of participants reporting satisfaction versus 30% in the hot group. Conclusion: This study demonstrates that cold fomentation is significantly more effective than hot fomentation in managing acute gouty arthritis. Cold therapy provided superior pain relief, reduced swelling, improved joint mobility, and minimized the risk of symptom exacerbation. In contrast, hot fomentation often worsened symptoms, making it unsuitable for acute gout management. These findings suggest that cold fomentation should be the preferred thermal therapy for gout flare-ups, while heat applications should be avoided.

Indexed as

cold fomentationflare-upsGouty arthritishot fomentationjoint mobilitypain managementpatient satisfactionswellingthermal therapy

Identifiers

PMID39801867
PMCPMC11723740

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.