RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) for chronic knee pain secondary to osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane Central to September 2023 for trials that (1) enrolled patients with chronic pain associated with knee OA, and (2) randomized them to MSC therapy vs. placebo or usual care. We performed random-effects meta-analysis and used Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation to assess the certainty of evidence. RESULTS: We included 16 trials (807 participants). At 3-6 months, MSC therapy probably results in little to no difference in pain relief (weighted mean difference [WMD] -0.74 cm on a 10 cm visual analog scale [VAS], 95% confidence interval [95%CI] -1.16 to -0.33; minimally important difference [MID] 1.5 cm) or physical functioning (WMD 2.23 points on 100-point 36-item Short Form Survey (SF-36) physical functioning subscale, 95%CI -0.97 to 5.43; MID 10-points; both moderate certainty). At 12 months, injection of MSCs probably results in little to no difference in pain (WMD -0.73 cm on a 10 cm VAS, 95%CI -1.69 to 0.24; moderate certainty) and may improve physical functioning (WMD 19.36 points on 100-point SF-36 PF subscale, 95%CI -0.19 to 38.9; low certainty). MSC therapy may increase risk of any adverse events (risk ratio [RR] 2.67, 95%CI 1.19 to 5.99; low certainty) and pain and swelling of the knee joint (RR 1.58, 95%CI 1.04 to 2.38; low certainty). CONCLUSIONS: Intra-articular injection of MSCs for chronic knee pain associated with OA probably provides little to no improvement in pain or physical function.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Quality improvement (QI) efforts are critical to promoting health equity and mitigating disparities in healthcare outcomes. Equity-focused QI (EF-QI) interventions address the unique needs of equity-deserving groups and the root causes of disparities. This scoping review aims to identify themes from EF-QI interventions that improve the health of equity-deserving groups, to serve as a resource for researchers embarking on QI. METHODS: In adherence with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis guidelines, several healthcare and medical databases were systematically searched from inception to December 2022. Primary studies that report results from EF-QI interventions in healthcare were included. Reviewers conducted screening and data extraction using Covidence. Inductive thematic analysis using NVivo identified key barriers to inform future EF-QI interventions. RESULTS: Of 5,330 titles and abstracts screened, 36 articles were eligible for inclusion. They reported on EF-QI interventions across eight medical disciplines: primary care, obstetrics, psychiatry, paediatrics, oncology, cardiology, neurology and respirology. The most common focus was racialised communities (15/36; 42%). Barriers to EF-QI interventions included those at the provider level (training and supervision, time constraints) and institution level (funding and partnerships, infrastructure). The last theme critical to EF-QI interventions is sustainability. Only six (17%) interventions actively involved patient partners. DISCUSSION: EF-QI interventions can be an effective tool for promoting health equity, but face numerous barriers to success. It is unclear whether the demonstrated barriers are intrinsic to the equity focus of the projects or can be generalised to all QI work. Researchers embarking on EF-QI work should engage patients, in addition to hospital and clinic leadership in the design process to secure funding and institutional support, improving sustainability. To the best of our knowledge, no review has synthesised the results of EF-QI interventions in healthcare. Further studies of EF-QI champions are required to better understand the barriers and how to overcome them.