AIM: To determine the efficacy of therapeutic ultrasound vs sham for improving pain and physical function immediately post-intervention in people with knee osteoarthritis(OA). METHODS: We hand searched meta-analyses o...AIM: To determine the efficacy of therapeutic ultrasound vs sham for improving pain and physical function immediately post-intervention in people with knee osteoarthritis(OA). METHODS: We hand searched meta-analyses on the topic published in 2010 and updated the search in three electronic databases(MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL) January 1, 2009 to September 5, 2013 to identify relevant studies. The inclusion criteria were human randomized controlled trials published in the English language in which active therapeutic ultrasound was compared tosham ultrasound, data for people with knee OA were reported separately, participants were blinded to treatment allocation and outcomes assessed before and after treatment included pain, self-reported physical function and performance-based physical function. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts retrieved in the search to identify trials suitable for full text review. Data extraction and risk of bias assessment of the identified trials were completed independently by two reviewers. Pooled analyses were conducted using inverse-variance random effects models.RESULTS: We screened 1013 titles and abstracts. Meta-analysis of pain outcomes from 5 small trials(281 participants/OA knees) showed that, compared to sham ultrasound, therapeutic ultrasound improves pain [standardized mean difference(SMD)(95%CI) =-0.39(-0.70--0.08); P = 0.01] but not physical function [self-reported in 3 trials(130 participants/OA knees): SMD(95%CI) =-0.21(-0.55-0.14), P = 0.24; walking performance in 4 trials(130 participants/OA knees): SMD(95%CI) =-0.11(-0.59-0.37), P = 0.65). For the walking performance outcome, the dispersion of the estimated effects exceeded that expected due to sampling error(χ2 = 8.37, P = 0.04, I 2 = 64%). Subgroup analyses of three trials that administered high dose ultrasound improved the consistency(I2 = 28%) but the treatment effect remained insignificant.CONCLUSION: Meta-analyzed double-blind placebocontrolled randomized trials provide low-strength evidence that therapeutic ultrasound decreases knee OA pain and very low-strength evidence that it does not improve physical function.展开更多
基金Supported by The Canadian Institutes of Health Research Randomized Controlled Trials Mentorship Program(NJM,MB),No.MTP 108229
文摘AIM: To determine the efficacy of therapeutic ultrasound vs sham for improving pain and physical function immediately post-intervention in people with knee osteoarthritis(OA). METHODS: We hand searched meta-analyses on the topic published in 2010 and updated the search in three electronic databases(MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL) January 1, 2009 to September 5, 2013 to identify relevant studies. The inclusion criteria were human randomized controlled trials published in the English language in which active therapeutic ultrasound was compared tosham ultrasound, data for people with knee OA were reported separately, participants were blinded to treatment allocation and outcomes assessed before and after treatment included pain, self-reported physical function and performance-based physical function. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts retrieved in the search to identify trials suitable for full text review. Data extraction and risk of bias assessment of the identified trials were completed independently by two reviewers. Pooled analyses were conducted using inverse-variance random effects models.RESULTS: We screened 1013 titles and abstracts. Meta-analysis of pain outcomes from 5 small trials(281 participants/OA knees) showed that, compared to sham ultrasound, therapeutic ultrasound improves pain [standardized mean difference(SMD)(95%CI) =-0.39(-0.70--0.08); P = 0.01] but not physical function [self-reported in 3 trials(130 participants/OA knees): SMD(95%CI) =-0.21(-0.55-0.14), P = 0.24; walking performance in 4 trials(130 participants/OA knees): SMD(95%CI) =-0.11(-0.59-0.37), P = 0.65). For the walking performance outcome, the dispersion of the estimated effects exceeded that expected due to sampling error(χ2 = 8.37, P = 0.04, I 2 = 64%). Subgroup analyses of three trials that administered high dose ultrasound improved the consistency(I2 = 28%) but the treatment effect remained insignificant.CONCLUSION: Meta-analyzed double-blind placebocontrolled randomized trials provide low-strength evidence that therapeutic ultrasound decreases knee OA pain and very low-strength evidence that it does not improve physical function.
