MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401799673 · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e36682

Efficacy of non-pharmacological treatments for knee osteoarthritis: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

2024· review· en· W4401799673 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Shihang Cao, Qiang Zan, Baohui Wang, Xiaochen Fan, Ziying Chen, Fengxiang Yan

Bibliographic record

VenueHeliyon · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLaser Applications in Dentistry and Medicine
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOsteoarthritisMeta-analysisMedicineSystematic reviewMEDLINEAlternative medicinePhysical therapyInternal medicineBiologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: This study aims to conduct a network meta-analysis to compare the clinical efficacy of seven distinct non-pharmacological therapies for knee osteoarthritis. We hope that our research findings can provide reference for clinical practitioners in formulating treatment plans. Methods: Through a computer-based search, we systematically retrieved randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on non-pharmacological therapies for knee osteoarthritis from eight databases, including CNKI, Wanfang, VIP, PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Scopus, and The Cochrane Library. Following screening, data extraction, and methodological quality assessment, relevant data were included and analyzed using R 4.2.3 software. Results: A comprehensive analysis of 24 RCTs involving 2582 patients encompassed seven diverse non-pharmacological therapies. The efficacy rankings, based on Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores, were as follows: shock wave therapy > needle-knife > laser therapy > acupuncture > ultrasound > exercise > transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation. Similarly, based on Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) total scores, the efficacy rankings were as follows: shock wave therapy > needle-knife > laser therapy > acupuncture > ultrasound > transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation > exercise. Among the three WOMAC subscales, the efficacy rankings for non-pharmacological therapies were as follows: For stiffness: laser therapy > exercise > shock wave therapy > acupuncture > needle-knife > ultrasound > transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation; For daily activities: shock wave therapy > laser therapy > needle-knife > acupuncture > ultrasound > transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation > exercise; For pain: shock wave therapy > needle-knife > laser therapy > acupuncture > exercise > transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation > ultrasound. Conclusion: Based on the currently limited research, we can prioritize the use of shockwave therapy to treat patients with knee osteoarthritis. However, it is essential to emphasize that further rigorous and well-designed randomized controlled trials are necessary to validate the conclusions drawn from this study.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.532
Threshold uncertainty score0.989

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.108
GPT teacher head0.434
Teacher spread0.326 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHeliyonSame topicLaser Applications in Dentistry and MedicineFrench-language works237,207