You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 52, Issue 16
  • What interventions can improve quality of life or psychosocial factors of individuals with knee osteoarthritis? A systematic review with meta-analysis of primary outcomes from randomised controlled trials

Article Text

Article menu

Download PDFPDF

Review
What interventions can improve quality of life or psychosocial factors of individuals with knee osteoarthritis? A systematic review with meta-analysis of primary outcomes from randomised controlled trials
Free
  1. Ronaldo Valdir Briani1,
  2. Amanda Schenatto Ferreira1,
  3. Marcella Ferraz Pazzinatto1,
  4. Evangelos Pappas2,
  5. Danilo De Oliveira Silva3,
  6. Fábio Mícolis de Azevedo1
  1. 1 School of Science and Technology, Laboratory of Biomechanics and Motor Control (LABCOM), São Paulo State University, Presidente Prudente, Brazil
  2. 2 Discipline of Physiotherapy, Faculty of Health Sciences, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
  3. 3 La Trobe Sports and Exercise Medicine Research Centre (LASEM), La Trobe University, School of Allied Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  1. Correspondence to Ronaldo Valdir Briani, School of Science and Technology, Laboratory of Biomechanics and Motor Control (LABCOM), São Paulo State University, Presidente Prudente 19060-900, Brazil; ronaldobriani{at}hotmail.com

Abstract

Objective To systematically review evidence of primary outcomes from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) examining the effect of treatment strategies on quality of life (QoL) or psychosocial factors in individuals with knee osteoarthritis (OA).

Design Systematic review with meta-analysis.

Data sources Medline, Embase, SPORTDiscus, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and Web of Science were searched from inception to November 2017.

Eligibility criteria for selecting studies We included RCTs investigating the effect of conservative interventions on QoL or psychosocial factors in individuals with knee OA. Only RCTs considering these outcomes as primary were included.

Results Pooled data supported the use of exercise therapy compared with controls for improving health-related and knee-related QoL. There was limited evidence that a combined treatment of yoga, transcutaneous electrical stimulation and ultrasound may be effective in improving QoL. Limited evidence supported the use of cognitive behavioural therapies (with or without being combined with exercise therapy) for improving psychosocial factors such as self-efficacy, depression and psychological distress.

Summary/Conclusion Exercise therapy (with or without being combined with other interventions) seems to be effective in improving health-related and knee-related QoL or psychosocial factors of individuals with knee OA. In addition, evidence supports the use of cognitive behavioural therapies (with or without exercise therapy) for improving psychosocial factors such as self-efficacy, depression and psychological distress in individuals with knee OA.

PROSPERO registration number CRD42016047602.

  • exercise rehabilitation
  • knee
  • intervention
  • physiotherapy
  • psychology

https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2017-098099

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors RVB and ASF were responsible for the systematic search, data extraction and methodological quality appraisals. All authors were involved in the study design, drafting and manuscript editing.

    • Funding This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors. RVB, ASF, MFP, and DOS are funded by São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) with scholarships (numbers: 2017/483-7, 2016/02357-1, 2016/19784-0, 2015/17777-3). FMA is funded by FAPESP with a grant (number: 2014/24939-7).

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Patient consent Not required.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.