Proliferative injection therapy for osteoarthritis: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: To systematically analyse randomised controlled trials (RCTs) about efficacy and safety of proliferative injection therapy (prolotherapy) for treatment of osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: CENTRAL, Embase and MEDLINE were searched. Two reviewers independently conducted screening and data extraction. RCTs were assessed with the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Type of treatment, study design, dosing, efficacy outcomes and safety outcomes were analysed. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42016035258). RESULTS: Seven RCTs were included, with 393 participants aged 40-75 years and mean OA pain duration from three months to eight years. Follow-up was 12 weeks to 12 months. Studies analysed OA of the knee joint (n = 5), first carpometacarpal joint (n = 1) and finger joints (n = 1). Various types of prolotherapy were used; dextrose was the most commonly used irritant agent. All studies concluded that prolotherapy was effective treatment for OA. No serious adverse events were reported. The studies had considerable methodological limitations. DISCUSSION: Limited evidence from low-quality studies indicates a beneficial effect of prolotherapy for OA management. The number of participants in these studies was too small to provide reliable evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Current data from trials about prolotherapy for OA should be considered preliminary, and future high-quality trials on this topic are warranted.

Outcome Domains, Outcome Measures, and Characteristics of Randomized Controlled Trials Testing Nonsurgical Interventions for Osteoarthritis.

OBJECTIVE: Core outcome set (COS) is the minimum set of outcome domains that should be measured and reported in clinical trials. We analyzed outcome domains, prevalence of use of COS published by Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) initiative, outcome measures for outcome domains recommended by OMERACT COS, duration and size of randomized controlled trials (RCT) testing nonsurgical interventions for osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: We searched PubMed and analyzed RCT about nonsurgical interventions for OA published from June 2012 to June 2017. We extracted data about trial type, use of OMERACT COS, efficacy outcome domains, safety outcome domains, outcome measures used for COS assessment, duration, and sample size. RESULTS: Among 334 analyzed trials, complete OMERACT-recommended COS was used by 14% of trials. Higher median prevalence of using OMERACT COS was found in trials explicitly described as phase III, and trials of pharmacological interventions with followup ≥ 1 year, but both with wide range of COS usage. Trialists used numerous different outcome measures for analyzing core outcome domains: 50 different outcome measures for pain, 74 for physical function, 9 for patient's global assessment, and 5 for imaging. CONCLUSION: Suboptimal use of recommended COS and heterogeneity of outcome measures is reducing quality and comparability of OA trials and hinders conclusions about efficacy and comparative efficacy of nonsurgical interventions. Interventions for improving study design of trials in this field would be beneficial.

Selective reporting bias due to discrepancies between registered and published outcomes in osteoarthritis trials.

Aim: Outcome reporting bias (ORB) occurs when outcomes planned in a study protocol are subsequently not reported or are partially reported. Our aim was to analyze ORB in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about conservative interventions for osteoarthritis (OA) by comparing registered protocols and published manuscripts, as well as association between study funding type and intervention type, and ORB in those RCTs. Materials & methods: We analyzed RCTs that were published in a peer-review journal and analyzed any type of conservative intervention for treatment of OA in humans that reported in the manuscript registration in a public clinical trial registry and provided unique registration identifier. We extracted data indicating ORB by comparing outcomes in protocol and published article, and characteristics of trials. Results: In 190 (57%) of 334 included RCTs, it was indicated in the manuscript that a trial was registered. In 48% of trials we found discrepancies in number, type or time point of primary efficacy outcome between protocol and manuscript. Significantly less discrepancies in primary efficacy outcomes between protocols and published articles were found in trials funded by a commercial sponsor (p = 0.0062) and trials of pharmacological interventions (p = 0.0016). Conclusion: Trials about conservative therapies for OA have high prevalence of discrepancies between protocol and publication, and frequent ORB. This may mislead readers of published results because it has been shown that ORB can lead to both overestimation and underestimation of effects of interventions, depending on the intervention and outcome. Efforts to prevent nonregistration of protocols and selective reporting are needed.