ReviewCartilage2026
Comparing Five Major Knee Osteoarthritis Cohort Studies: Similarities, Differences, and Unique Aspects of CHECK, OAI, FNIH, IMI-APPROACH, and MOST.
Review in Cartilage, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- "A very good program … but I still have the knee problem": A qualitative study exploring patient acceptability of physiotherapy-led osteoarthritis services.Osteoarthritis and cartilage open · 2026Article
- A Multidimensional Definition of Pre-Osteoarthritis: Toward 21st-Century Subclinical Detection and Targeted Intervention.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
ObjectiveTo analyze and synthesize the information available from five pivotal, large-scale, multicenter, observational studies (CHECK, OAI, FNIH Biomarkers Consortium, IMI-APPROACH, and MOST) focusing on knee osteoarthritis (OA), which can be used to elucidate disease progression, risk factors, and the effectiveness of potential interventions.DesignFor this narrative review, a comprehensive literature search and data extraction from official web pages and scientific databases were conducted to compare methodologies, in- and exclusion criteria, outcomes, and cohort characteristics across the studies. Thematic, comparative, and qualitative analyses were employed to identify trends, commonalities, and disparities among the findings.ResultsThe studies collectively enhanced understanding of the onset and progression of knee OA, and in several of the studies, hip OA, emphasizing the importance of both systemic and local risk factors. Advanced imaging and biomarkers are important components in all the cohorts, with the goal of aiding early diagnosis and tracking disease progression. All cohorts evaluated unique markers generally not available in the other cohorts, while other factors overlap, suggesting possibilities for combining or cross-validating between cohorts.ConclusionsThe collaborative efforts of major OA research significantly advance our understanding of knee OA. These studies highlight the importance of a multifaceted approach, integrating advanced imaging, biomarkers, and longitudinal data to tackle the complexities of OA. By synthesizing findings and addressing knowledge gaps such as heterogeneity of patients and used measurements, and use of novel pain measures, future research can develop more effective diagnostic tools and treatments, ultimately enhancing the quality of life for OA patients.
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.