Pragmatism in manual therapy trials for knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review.

IF 2.1 Q1 REHABILITATION Archives of physiotherapy Pub Date : 2024-02-26 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.33393/aop.2024.2916
Kyle R Adams, Ayodeji O Famuyide, Jodi L Young, C Daniel Maddox, Daniel I Rhon
{"title":"Pragmatism in manual therapy trials for knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review.","authors":"Kyle R Adams, Ayodeji O Famuyide, Jodi L Young, C Daniel Maddox, Daniel I Rhon","doi":"10.33393/aop.2024.2916","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Manual therapy is an often-utilized intervention for the management of knee osteoarthritis (OA). The interpretation of results presented by these trials can be affected by how well the study designs align applicability to real-world clinical settings.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To examine the existing body of clinical trials investigating manual therapy for knee OA to determine where they fall on the efficacy-effectiveness spectrum.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This systematic review has been guided and informed by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Randomized controlled trials that investigated manual therapy treatments for adults with knee OA were retrieved via searches of multiple databases to identify trials published prior to April 2023. The Rating of Included Trials on the Efficacy-Effectiveness Spectrum (RITES) tool was used to objectively rate the efficacy-effectiveness nature of each trial design. The Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 assessment tool (RoB-2) was used to assess the risk of bias across five domains.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 36 trials, a higher percentage of trials had a greater emphasis on efficacy within all four domains: participant characteristics (75.0%), trial setting (77.8%), flexibility of intervention (58.3%), and clinical relevance of experimental and comparison intervention (47.2%). In addition, 13.9% of the trials had low risk of bias, 41.7% had high risk of bias, and 44.4% had some concerns regarding bias.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>While many trials support manual therapy as effective for the management of knee OA, a greater focus on study designs with an emphasis on effectiveness would improve the applicability and generalizability of future trials.</p>","PeriodicalId":72290,"journal":{"name":"Archives of physiotherapy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10898243/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of physiotherapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.33393/aop.2024.2916","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Manual therapy is an often-utilized intervention for the management of knee osteoarthritis (OA). The interpretation of results presented by these trials can be affected by how well the study designs align applicability to real-world clinical settings.

Aim: To examine the existing body of clinical trials investigating manual therapy for knee OA to determine where they fall on the efficacy-effectiveness spectrum.

Methods: This systematic review has been guided and informed by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Randomized controlled trials that investigated manual therapy treatments for adults with knee OA were retrieved via searches of multiple databases to identify trials published prior to April 2023. The Rating of Included Trials on the Efficacy-Effectiveness Spectrum (RITES) tool was used to objectively rate the efficacy-effectiveness nature of each trial design. The Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 assessment tool (RoB-2) was used to assess the risk of bias across five domains.

Results: Of the 36 trials, a higher percentage of trials had a greater emphasis on efficacy within all four domains: participant characteristics (75.0%), trial setting (77.8%), flexibility of intervention (58.3%), and clinical relevance of experimental and comparison intervention (47.2%). In addition, 13.9% of the trials had low risk of bias, 41.7% had high risk of bias, and 44.4% had some concerns regarding bias.

Conclusions: While many trials support manual therapy as effective for the management of knee OA, a greater focus on study designs with an emphasis on effectiveness would improve the applicability and generalizability of future trials.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
膝关节骨性关节炎手法治疗试验中的实用主义:系统综述。
导言:手法治疗是治疗膝关节骨性关节炎(OA)的常用干预方法。对这些试验结果的解释可能会受到研究设计对实际临床环境适用性的影响。目的:检查现有的研究膝关节OA手法治疗的临床试验,以确定这些试验的疗效:方法:本系统性综述以系统性综述和荟萃分析首选报告项目(PRISMA)指南为指导和依据。通过对多个数据库进行检索,找出了2023年4月之前发表的、研究成人膝关节OA患者手法治疗的随机对照试验。采用功效-效果光谱纳入试验评级(RITES)工具对每项试验设计的功效-效果性质进行客观评级。科克伦偏倚风险 2.0 评估工具(RoB-2)用于评估五个领域的偏倚风险:在 36 项试验中,有较高比例的试验在所有四个领域中都更加强调疗效:参与者特征(75.0%)、试验环境(77.8%)、干预的灵活性(58.3%)以及试验和对比干预的临床相关性(47.2%)。此外,13.9%的试验存在低偏倚风险,41.7%存在高偏倚风险,44.4%存在一些偏倚问题:结论:虽然许多试验都支持手法治疗对治疗膝关节OA有效,但如果能更加注重研究设计,强调有效性,将能提高未来试验的适用性和推广性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊最新文献
Indoor and outdoor 10-Meter Walk Test and Timed Up and Go in patients after total hip arthroplasty: a reliability and comparative study. Erratum in: Pragmatism in manual therapy trials for knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review. Intra- and inter-rater reliability of goniometric finger range of motion using a written protocol. A decade of growth: preserving the original meaning of research for physiotherapists. Neurological conditions and community-based physical activity: physical therapists' belief and actions.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1