SynthesisMedicine2025
Ultrasound-guided versus blind arthrocentesis in knee osteoarthritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo summarize the current evidence about effectiveness and accuracy of using ultrasound-guided compared to blind arthrocentesis in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis.
methodsWeb of Science, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, Scopus, PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, Wangfang Database, and SinoMed were conducted from their inception to February 2024. Eligible studies included Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs that compared the ultrasound-guided and blind arthrocentesis in knee osteoarthritis, with outcomes assessed base on pain, function, accuracy, and additional factors such as satisfaction, cost-effectiveness, fluid yield, and synovial membrane thickness.
resultsTwenty-one studies that met the inclusion criteria (1924 patients) were identified. The results indicated that ultrasound-guided arthrocentesis was superior to blind arthrocentesis (10 trials; MD = -0.37; 95% CI = -0.55 to -0.19; P = .000). However, no significant difference was found in function improvement (7 trials; SMD = -0.60; 95% CI = -1.31 to 0.12; P = .101). Ultrasound-guided arthrocentesis also demonstrated better accuracy compared to blind arthrocentesis (RR = 1.26, 95% CI: 1.09-1.46, P = .001). For satisfaction, the result reported ultrasound was better than the blind group (MD = 1.11; 95% CI = 0.67-1.54; P = .000) at immediate post-procedure, and at the 4 to 6 weeks (MD = 0.98; 95% CI = 0.56-1.41; P = .000).
conclusionIn the comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of knee osteoarthritis, ultrasound-guided arthrocentesis is superior to anatomic landmark-guided arthrocentesis in terms of pain reduction and accuracy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.