DESIGN: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL were systematically searched (1990-April 2020) for studies describing the prevalence of NP and PS in knee and hip osteoarthritis using self-report questionnaires. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed. Statistical heterogeneity between studies and sub-groups (affected joint and population source as a proxy for disease severity) was assessed (I2 statistic and the Chi-squared test).
RESULTS: From 2,706 non-duplicated references, 39 studies were included (2011-2020). Thirty-six studies reported on knee pain and six on hip pain. For knee osteoarthritis, the pooled prevalence of NP was: using PainDETECT, possible NP(score ≥13) 40% (95%CI 32-48%); probable NP(score >18) 20% (95%CI 15-24%); using Self-Report Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs, 32% (95%CI 26-38%); using Douleur Neuropathique (DN4) 41% (95% CI 24-59%). The prevalence of PS using Central Sensitization Inventory (CSI) was 36% (95% CI 12-59%). For hip osteoarthritis, the pooled prevalence of NP was: using PainDETECT, possible NP 29% (95%CI 22-37%%); probable NP 9% (95%CI 6-13%); using DN4 22% (95%CI 12-31%) in one study. The prevalence of possible NP pain was higher at the knee (40%) than the hip (29%) (difference 11% (95% CI 0-22%), P = 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Using self-report questionnaire tools, NP was more prevalent in knee than hip osteoarthritis. The prevalence of NP in knee and hip osteoarthritis were similar for each joint regardless of study population source or tool used. Whether defining NP using self-report questionnaires enables more effective targeted therapy in osteoarthritis requires investigation.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of exercise and its potential determinants for pain, function, performance, and quality of life (QoL) in knee and hip osteoarthritis (OA).
METHODS: We searched 9 electronic databases (AMED, CENTRAL, CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE Ovid, PEDro, PubMed, SPORTDiscus and Google Scholar) for reports of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing exercise-only interventions with usual care. The search was performed from inception up to December 2017 with no language restriction. The effect size (ES), with its 95% confidence interval (CI), was calculated on the basis of between-group standardised mean differences. The primary endpoint was at or nearest to 8 weeks. Other outcome time points were grouped into intervals, from<1 month to≥18 months, for time-dependent effects analysis. Potential determinants were explored by subgroup analyses. Level of significance was set at P≤0.10.
RESULTS: Data from 77 RCTs (6472 participants) confirmed statistically significant exercise benefits for pain (ES 0.56, 95% CI 0.44-0.68), function (0.50, 0.38-0.63), performance (0.46, 0.35-0.57), and QoL (0.21, 0.11-0.31) at or nearest to 8 weeks. Across all outcomes, the effects appeared to peak around 2 months and then gradually decreased and became no better than usual care after 9 months. Better pain relief was reported by trials investigating participants who were younger (mean age<60 years), had knee OA, and were not awaiting joint replacement surgery.
CONCLUSIONS: Exercise significantly reduces pain and improves function, performance and QoL in people with knee and hip OA as compared with usual care at 8 weeks. The effects are maximal around 2 months and thereafter slowly diminish, being no better than usual care at 9 to 18 months. Participants with younger age, knee OA and not awaiting joint replacement may benefit more from exercise therapy. These potential determinants, identified by study-level analyses, may have implied ecological bias and need to be confirmed with individual patient data.
METHODS: This study will include only RCTs published in peer-reviewed journals. A systematic search will be conducted in several electronic databases and other relevant online resources. No limitations are imposed on language or publication date. Participants must be explicitly identified by authors as having OA. Interventions that involved exercise or comparators in any form will be included. Pain is the primary outcome of interest; secondary outcomes will include function and quality of life measures. Quality assessment of studies will be based on the modified Cochrane's risk of bias assessment tool. At least two investigators will be involved throughout all stages of screening and data acquisition. Conflicts will be resolved through discussion. Conventional meta-analysis will be performed based on random effects model and network meta-analysis on a Bayesian model. Subgroup analysis will also be conducted based on study, patient and disease characteristics.
DISCUSSION: This study will provide for the first time comprehensive research evidence for the relative efficacy of different exercise regimens for treatment of OA. We will use network meta-analysis of existing RCT data to answer this question.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42016033865.
Materials and Methods: This is a single-center quasi-experimental study involving 100 patients seen in the outpatient department with knee osteoarthritis. They were randomly (computer generated) allocated into two arms (high frequency [H-F] or low frequency [L-F]). H-F is set at 100 Hz and L-F is set at 4 Hz. A baseline assessment is taken with the visual analog score (VAS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), Oxford Knee Score, and Lequesne index. They were instructed to self-administer the TENS therapy as per protocol and followed up at the 4th and 12th week to be reevaluated on the above scores.
Results: The final results show that both H-F and L-F groups showed improvement in all parameters of the VAS, WOMAC index, Oxford Knee Score, and Lequesne index (73%). Only the pain component of Lequesne index, activities of daily living component of Lequesne index, total Lequesne index, and pain component of WOMAC index shows a statistically significant difference, favoring the H-F group. The H-F group yields a faster result; however, with time the overall effect remains the same in both groups.
Conclusion: Both H-F and L-F groups show improvement in all the component of Lequesne index, Oxford Knee Score, WOMAC index, and VAS with no statistical difference between the two groups. Although H-F yields a faster result, not everyone is able to tolerate the intensity. Therefore, the selection of H-F or L-F should be done on case basis depending on the severity of symptoms, patient's expectation, and patient's ability to withstand the treatment therapy. Based on this 12th week follow-up, both groups will continue to improve with time. A longer study should be conducted to see it this improvement will eventually plateau off or continue to improve until the patient is symptom free.