MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2021238909 · doi:10.1001/jama.2013.243229

Lateral Wedge Insoles as a Conservative Treatment for Pain in Patients With Medial Knee Osteoarthritis

2013· review· en· W2021238909 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLower Extremity Biomechanics and Pathologies
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences Centre
FundersNational Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin DiseasesVersus ArthritisNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsMedicineOsteoarthritisWOMACMeta-analysisCochrane LibraryKnee painRandomized controlled trialPhysical therapyCINAHLRelative riskStrictly standardized mean differenceHeelConfidence intervalSurgeryInternal medicinePsychological interventionAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

IMPORTANCE: There is no consensus regarding the efficacy of lateral wedge insoles as a treatment for pain in medial knee osteoarthritis. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether lateral wedge insoles reduce pain in patients with medial knee osteoarthritis compared with an appropriate control. DATA SOURCES: Databases searched include the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, AMED, MEDLINE, CINAHL Plus, ScienceDirect, SCOPUS, Web of Science, and BIOSIS from inception to May 2013, with no limits on study date or language. The metaRegister of Controlled Trials and the NHS Evidence website were also searched. STUDY SELECTION: Included were randomized trials comparing shoe-based treatments (lateral heel wedge insoles or shoes with variable stiffness soles) aimed at reducing medial knee load, with a neutral or no wedge control condition in patients with painful medial knee osteoarthritis. Studies must have included patient-reported pain as an outcome. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Trial data were extracted independently by 2 researchers using a standardized form. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool by 2 observers. Eligible studies were pooled using a random-effects approach. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES: Change in self-reported knee pain at follow-up. RESULTS: Twelve trials met inclusion criteria with a total of 885 participants of whom 502 received lateral wedge treatment. The pooled standardized mean difference (SMD) suggested a favorable association with lateral wedges compared with control (SMD, -0.47; 95% CI, -0.80 to -0.14); however, substantial heterogeneity was present (I2 = 82.7%). This effect size represents an effect of -2.12 points on the 20-point Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) pain scale. Larger trials with a lower risk of bias suggested a null association. Meta-regression analyses showed that higher effect sizes (unstandardized β, 1.07 [95% CI, 0.28 to 1.87] for trials using a no treatment control) were seen in trials using a no wedge treatment control group (n = 4 trials; SMD, -1.20 [95% CI, -2.09 to -0.30]) and lower effect sizes (unstandardized β, 0.26 [95% CI, 0.002 to 0.52] for each bias category deemed low risk) when the study method was deemed at low risk of bias. Among trials in which the control treatment was a neutral insole (n = 7), lateral wedges showed no association (SMD, -0.03 [95% CI, -0.18 to 0.12] on WOMAC; this represents an effect of -0.12 points), and results showed little heterogeneity (I2 = 7.1%). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Although meta-analytic pooling of all studies showed a statistically significant association between use of lateral wedges and lower pain in medial knee osteoarthritis, restriction of studies to those using a neutral insole comparator did not show a significant or clinically important association. These findings do not support the use of lateral wedges for this indication.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.997
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.223 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it