Search

Background: Osteoarthritis (OA) affects a large portion of the population. Low Level Laser Therapy (LLLT) is a light source that generates extremely pure light, of a single wavelength. The effect is not thermal, but rather related to photochemical reactions in the cells. LLLT was introduced as an alternative non-invasive treatment for OA about 30 years ago, but its effectiveness has to be examined more closely, especially in the treatment of OA., Objectives: To assess the effectiveness of class III LLLT for osteoarthritis when irradiation is directed at the osteoarthritic joint capsule., Search Strategy: Searches were conducted in the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Musculoskeletal registry, the Rehabilitation and Related Therapies field registry and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register up to May, 2005., Selection Criteria: Following an a prior protocol, only controlled clinical trials of LLLT for the treatment of patients with a clinical diagnosis of OA were eligible. Abstracts lacking data were excluded unless further data could be obtained from the authors., Data Collection and Analysis: Two reviewers independently selected trials and extracted data using predetermined forms. A fixed effects model was used throughout for continuous variables, except where heterogeneity existed; in which case, a random effects model was used. Results were analyzed as weighted mean differences (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI), whereas the difference between the treatment and control groups was weighted by the inverse of the variance. Standardized mean differences (SMD) were calculated by dividing the difference between treatment and control by the baseline variance, and were used in the analysis of pain because different scales were used to measure it. Dichotomous outcomes were analyzed with relative risk (RR)., Main Results: Eight trials were included with 233 patients randomized to laser and 172 patients to placebo laser. Treatment duration ranged from two to six weeks. Pain was assessed in seven trials. When the results were pooled from different pain scales used in these seven trials, a statistically significant difference in favor of laser treatment was found with a SMD of -0.28 (95% CI: -0.48 to -0.09). One of these studies also measured pain during movement and found a statistically significant difference in favor of laser treatment with a WMD of -1.16 (95% CI: -2.02 to -0.30). Two studies found significant results for increased knee range of motion. Two others studies found a statistically significant difference in favor of laser treatment for patient-assessed global disease activity with laser compared to placebo (RR 1.70, 95%CI: 1.1. to 2.63). One trial evaluated the effectiveness of laser treatment in temporomandibular joint OA and found a statistically significant difference (WMD 38.69, 95% CI: 29.25 to 48.13) using the change in VAS score to measure pain. One study found a statistically significant difference in favor of laser treatment at the end of treatment and at 4 and 8 weeks post-treatment for morning stiffness. Other outcome measures of joint tenderness and strength did not yield significant differences., Authors' Conclusions: Five trials included in this review showed a statistically significant difference favoring laser treatment when compared to placebo for at least one outcome measure. Three trials did not report beneficial effects. The varying results of these trials may be due to the method of laser application and/or other features of LLLT application. Clinicians and researchers should consistently report the characteristics of LLLT devices and application techniques used. New trials on LLLT should make use of standardized, validated outcomes. There is clearly a need to investigate the effects of different dosages on LLLT effectiveness for OA in future randomized, controlled clinical trials. Also, more studies should be done to investigate the anti-inflammatory action of laser as well as the appropriate parameters needed to achieve an anti-inflammatory effect.

Background: Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common form of arthritis, and it is often associated with significant disability and an impaired quality of life., Objectives: To review all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effectiveness and toxicity of glucosamine in OA., Search Strategy: We searched MEDLINE, PREMEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, ACP Journal Club, DARE, CDSR, and the CCTR. We also wrote letters to content experts, and hand searched reference lists of identified RCTs and pertinent review articles. All searches were updated in January 2005., Selection Criteria: Relevant studies met the following criteria: 1) RCTs evaluating the effectiveness and safety of glucosamine in OA, 2) Both placebo controlled and comparative studies were eligible, 3) Both single blinded and double blinded studies were eligible., Data Collection and Analysis: Data abstraction was performed independently by two investigators and the results were compared for degree of agreement. Gotzsche's method and a validated tool (Jadad 1996) were used to score the quality of the RCTs. Continuous outcome measures were pooled using standardized mean differences (SMD) as the measure of effect size. Dichotomous outcome measures were pooled using relative risk ratios (RR)., Main Results: Analysis restricted to eight studies with adequate allocation concealment failed to show benefit of glucosamine for pain and WOMAC function. Collectively, the 20 analyzed RCTs found glucosamine favoured placebo with a 28% (change from baseline) improvement in pain (SMD -0.61, 95% CI -0.95, -0.28) and a 21% (change from baseline) improvement in function using the Lequesne index (SMD -0.51 95% CI -0.96, -0.05). However, the results are not uniformly positive, and the reasons for this remain unexplained. WOMAC pain, function and stiffness outcomes did not reach statistical significance. In the 10 RCTs in which the Rotta preparation of glucosamine was compared to placebo, glucosamine was found to be superior for pain (SMD -1.31, 95% CI -1.99, -0.64) and function using the Lequesne index (SMD -0.51, 95% CI -0.96, -0.05). Pooled results for pain (SMD -0.15, 95% CI -0.35, 0.05) and function using the WOMAC index (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.18, 0.25) in those RCTs in which a non-Rotta preparation of glucosamine was compared to placebo did not reach statistical significance. In the four RCTs in which the Rotta preparation of glucosamine was compared to an NSAID, glucosamine was superior in two, and equivalent in two. Two RCTs using the Rotta preparation showed that glucosamine was able to slow radiological progression of OA of the knee over a three year period (SMD 0.24, 95% CI 0.04, 0.43). Glucosamine was as safe as placebo in terms of the number of subjects reporting adverse reactions (RR=0.97, 95% CI, 0.88, 1.08)., Authors' Conclusions: This update includes 20 studies with 2570 patients. Pooled results from studies using a non-Rotta preparation or adequate allocation concealment failed to show benefit in pain and WOMAC function while those studies evaluating the Rotta preparation show that glucosamine was superior to placebo in the treatment of pain and functional impairment resulting from symptomatic OA. WOMAC outcomes of pain, stiffness and function did not show a superiority of glucosamine over placebo for both Rotta and non-Rotta preparations of glucosamine. Glucosamine was as safe as placebo.

Background: Therapeutic exercise is used as one modality to treat people with osteoarthritis (OA)., Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness of therapeutic exercise of differing intensities on objective and subjective measures of disease activity in people with OA., Search Strategy: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Pedro, Current Contents, Sports Discus and CINAHL up to and including December 2002. The Cochrane Field of Rehabilitation and Related Therapies and the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Review Group were also contacted for a search of their specialized registers. Handsearching was conducted on all retrieved articles for additional studies., Selection Criteria: Comparative controlled studies, such as randomized controlled trials, controlled clinical trials, cohort studies or case/control studies, of therapeutic exercises compared to control or active interventions in people with OA were eligible. No language restrictions were applied. Abstracts were also accepted., Data Collection and Analysis: Two independent reviewers identified potential articles from the literature search. These reviewers extracted data using pre-defined extraction forms. Consensus was reached on all data extraction. The two reviewers used a five point scale to assess the quality of the selected articles. Randomization, double-blinding and description of withdrawals were assessed., Main Results: One study involving 39 participants met the inclusion criteria. The review indicates that there were no significant differences between high intensity and low intensity aerobic exercise on participants with OA of the knee for functional status, gait, pain and aerobic capacity (Mangione 1999)., Reviewer's Conclusions: Both high intensity and low intensity aerobic exercise appear to be equally effective in improving a patient's functional status, gait, pain and aerobic capacity for people with OA of the knee. Further research involving a greater number of subjects, and a larger number of studies involving a control group is needed to further substantiate these results.

Background: As the focus for osteoarthritis (OA) treatment shifts away from drug therapy, we consider the effectiveness of pulsed electric stimulation which is proven to stimulate cartilage growth on the cellular level., Objectives: 1)To assess the effectiveness of pulsed electric stimulation for the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA). 2) To assess the most effective and efficient method of applying an electromagnetic field, through pulsed electromagnetic fields (PEMF) or electric stimulation, as well as the consideration of length of treatment, dosage, and the frequency of the applications., Search Strategy: We searched PREMEDLINE, MEDLINE, HealthSTAR, CINAHL, PEDro, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (CCTR) up to and including 2001. This included searches through the coordinating offices of the trials registries of the Cochrane Field of Physical and Related Therapies and the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group for further published and unpublished articles. The electronic search was complemented by hand searches and experts in the area., Selection Criteria: Randomized controlled trials and controlled clinical trials that compared PEMF or direct electric stimulation against placebo in patients with OA., Data Collection and Analysis: Two reviewers determined the studies to be included in the review based on inclusion and exclusion criteria (JH,VR) and extracted the data using pre-developed extraction forms for the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group. The methodological quality of the trials was assessed by the same reviewers using a validated scale (Jadad 1996). Osteoarthritis outcome measures were extracted from the publications according to OMERACT guidelines (Bellamy 1997) and additional secondary outcomes considered., Main Results: Only three studies with a total of 259 OA patients were included in the review. Electrical stimulation therapy had a small to moderate effect on outcomes for knee OA, all statistically significant with clinical benefit ranging from 13-23% greater with active treatment than with placebo. Only 2 outcomes for cervical OA were significantly different with PEMF treatment and no clinical benefit can be reported with changes of 12% or less., Reviewer's Conclusions: Current evidence suggests that electrical stimulation therapy may provide significant improvements for knee OA, but further studies are required to confirm whether the statistically significant results shown in these trials confer to important benefits.

Although transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation is commonly used to treat the pain of osteoarthritis, the effectiveness of this type of stimulation for pain relief remains controversial. This review found statistically significant results favouring conventional and acupuncture-like stimulation for pain relief and stiffness relief. Mixed stimulation was effective in reducing knee pain but had less effect on hip pain. Burst nerve stimulation resulted in statistically significant relief of knee stiffness and increase in long-term pain relief. Conventional, burst, acupuncturelike, and mixed transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation have some benefit over placebo for certain aspects of osteoarthritis-associated disability, and can be used as an adjunct therapy for treatment of patients with arthritis involving the hips and/or knees. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To calculate the number needed to treat (NNT) and number needed to harm (NNH) from the data in rheumatology clinical trials and systematic reviews.Methods: The NNTs for the clinically important outcome measures in the rheumatology systematic reviews from the Cochrane Library, issue 2, 2000 and in the original randomised, double blind, controlled trials were calculated. The measure used for calculating the NNT in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) interventions was the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement or Paulus criteria; in osteoarthritis (OA) interventions, the improvement of pain; and in systemic sclerosis (SSc) interventions, the improvement of Raynaud's phenomenon. The NNH was calculated from the rate of withdrawals due to adverse events from the treatment.Results: The data required for the calculation of the NNT were available in 15 systematic reviews and 11 original articles. For RA interventions, etanercept treatment for six months had the smallest NNT (1.6; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.4 to 2.0), whereas leflunomide had the largest NNH (9.6; 95% CI 6.8 to 16.7). For OA treatment options, only etodolac and tenoxicam produced significant pain relief compared with placebo (NNT=4.4; 95% CI 2.4 to 24.4 and 3.8; 95% CI 2.5 to 7.3, respectively). For SSc interventions, none were shown to be efficacious in improving Raynaud's phenomenon because the 95% CI of the NNT was infinite.Conclusions: The NNT and NNH are helpful for clinicians, enabling them to translate the results from clinical trials and systematic reviews to use in routine clinical practice. Both NNT and NNH should be accompanied by a limited 95% CI and adjusted for the individual subject's baseline risk. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]