Methotrexate for juvenile idiopathic arthritis.

BACKGROUND: Juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) is the most common rheumatic disease in childhood. Methotrexate has broad immunomodulatory properties and is the most commonly used disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD). This is an update of a 2001 Cochrane review. It supports a living guideline for children and young people with JIA. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of methotrexate for children and young people with juvenile idiopathic arthritis. SEARCH METHODS: The Australian JIA Living Guideline Working Group created a registry of all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of JIA by searching CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and trials registries. The date of the most recent search of online databases was 1 February 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: We searched for RCTs that compared methotrexate with placebo, no treatment, or another DMARD (with or without concomitant therapies) in children and young people (aged up to 18 years) with JIA. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. The main comparison was methotrexate versus placebo. Our outcomes were treatment response, sustained clinically inactive disease, function, pain, participant global assessment of well-being, serious adverse events, and withdrawals due to adverse events. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We identified three new trials in this update, bringing the total number of included RCTs to five (575 participants). Three trials evaluated oral methotrexate versus placebo, one evaluated methotrexate plus intra-articular glucocorticoid (IAGC) therapy versus IAGC therapy alone, and one evaluated methotrexate versus leflunomide. Doses of methotrexate ranged from 5 mg/m2/week to 15 mg/m2/week in four trials, and participants in the methotrexate group of the remaining trial received 0.5 mg/kg/week. Trial size varied from 31 to 226 participants. The average age of participants ranged from four to 10 years. Most participants were females and most had nonsystemic JIA. The study that evaluated methotrexate plus IAGC therapy versus IAGC therapy alone recruited children and young people with the oligoarticular disease subtype of JIA. Two placebo-controlled trials and the trial of methotrexate versus leflunomide were adequately randomised and blinded, and likely not susceptible to important biases. One placebo-controlled trial may have been susceptible to selection bias due to lack of adequate reporting of randomisation methods. The trial investigating the addition of methotrexate to IAGC therapy was susceptible to performance and detection biases. Methotrexate versus placebo Methotrexate compared with placebo may increase the number of children and young people who achieve treatment response up to six months (absolute difference of 163 more per 1000 people; risk ratio (RR) 1.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.21 to 2.31; I2 = 0%; 3 trials, 328 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, methotrexate compared with placebo may have little or no effect on pain as measured on an increasing scale of 0 to 100 (mean difference (MD) -1.10 points, 95% CI -9.09 to 6.88; 1 trial, 114 participants), improvement in participant global assessment of well-being (absolute difference of 92 more per 1000 people; RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.72; 1 trial, 176 participants), occurrence of serious adverse events (absolute difference of 5 fewer per 1000 people; RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.04 to 8.97; 3 trials, 328 participants), and withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 3.46, 95% CI 0.60 to 19.79; 3 trials, 328 participants) up to six months. We could not estimate the absolute difference for withdrawals due to adverse events because there were no withdrawals in the placebo group. All outcomes were reported within six months of randomisation. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence to low for all outcomes due to indirectness (suboptimal dosing of methotrexate and diverse outcome measures) and imprecision (few participants and low event rates). No trials reported function or the number of participants with sustained clinically inactive disease. Serious adverse events included liver derangement, abdominal pain, and inadvertent overdose. Methotrexate plus intra-articular corticosteroid therapy versus intra-articular corticosteroid therapy alone Methotrexate plus IAGC therapy compared with IAGC therapy alone may have little or no effect on the probability of sustained clinically inactive disease or the rate of withdrawals due to adverse events up to 12 months in children and young people with the oligoarticular subtype of JIA (low-certainty evidence). We could not calculate the absolute difference in withdrawals due to adverse events because there were no withdrawals in the control group. We are uncertain if there is any difference between the interventions in the risk of severe adverse events, because none were reported. The study did not report treatment response, function, pain, or participant global assessment of well-being. Methotrexate versus an alternative disease-modifying antirheumatic drug Methotrexate compared with leflunomide may have little or no effect on the probability of treatment response or on function, participant global assessment of well-being, risk of serious adverse events, and rate of withdrawals due to adverse events up to four months. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence for all outcomes to low due to imprecision. The study did not report pain or sustained clinically inactive disease. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Oral methotrexate (5 mg/m2/week to 15 mg/m2/week) compared with placebo may increase the number of children and young people achieving treatment response but may have little or no effect on pain or participant global assessment of well-being. Oral methotrexate plus IAGC injections compared to IAGC injections alone may have little or no effect on the likelihood of sustained clinically inactive disease among children and young people with oligoarticular JIA. Similarly, methotrexate compared with leflunomide may have little or no effect on treatment response, function, and participant global assessment of well-being. Serious adverse events due to methotrexate appear to be rare. We will update this review as new evidence becomes available to inform the living guideline.

Australian recommendations on perioperative use of disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs in people with inflammatory arthritis undergoing elective surgery.

Disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) are effective treatments for inflammatory arthritis but carry an increased risk of infection. For patients undergoing surgery, there is a need to consider the trade-off between a theoretical increased risk of infection with continuation of DMARDs perioperatively versus an increased risk of disease flare if they are temporarily withheld. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology to develop recommendations for perioperative use of DMARDs for people with inflammatory arthritis undergoing elective surgery. The recommendations form part of the National Health and Medical Research Council-endorsed Australian Living Guideline for the Pharmacological Management of Inflammatory Arthritis. Conditional recommendations were made against routinely discontinuing conventional synthetic and biologic (b) DMARDs in the perioperative period but to consider temporary discontinuation of bDMARDs in individuals with a high risk of infection or where the impact of infection would be severe. A conditional recommendation was made in favour of temporary discontinuation of targeted synthetic DMARDs in the perioperative period.

Australian recommendations on tapering of biologic and targeted synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs in inflammatory arthritis.

Biological and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARD) have been an important advance in the management of inflammatory arthritis, but are expensive medications, carry a risk of infection and other adverse effects, and are often perceived as a burden by patients. We used GRADE methodology to develop recommendations for dose reduction and discontinuation of b/tsDMARD in people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), axial spondyloarthritis (AxSpA) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who have achieved a low disease activity state or remission. The recommendations form part of the Australian Living Guideline for the Pharmacological Management of Inflammatory Arthritis, an NHMRC-endorsed 'living' guideline, in which recommendations are updated in near real-time as new evidence emerges. Conditional recommendations were made in favour of dose reduction in RA and AxSpA but not in PsA. Abrupt discontinuation of b/tsDMARD is not recommended in any of the three diseases.

Arthroscopic surgery for degenerative knee disease (osteoarthritis including degenerative meniscal tears).

BACKGROUND: Arthroscopic knee surgery remains a common treatment for symptomatic knee osteoarthritis, including for degenerative meniscal tears, despite guidelines strongly recommending against its use. This Cochrane Review is an update of a non-Cochrane systematic review published in 2017. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of arthroscopic surgery, including debridement, partial menisectomy or both, compared with placebo surgery or non-surgical treatment in people with degenerative knee disease (osteoarthritis, degenerative meniscal tears, or both). SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and two trials registers up to 16 April 2021, unrestricted by language. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), or trials using quasi-randomised methods of participant allocation, comparing arthroscopic surgery with placebo surgery or non-surgical interventions (e.g. exercise, injections, non-arthroscopic lavage/irrigation, drug therapy, and supplements and complementary therapies) in people with symptomatic degenerative knee disease (osteoarthritis or degenerative meniscal tears or both). Major outcomes were pain, function, participant-reported treatment success, knee-specific quality of life, serious adverse events, total adverse events and knee surgery (replacement or osteotomy). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and the certainty of evidence using GRADE. The primary comparison was arthroscopic surgery compared to placebo surgery for outcomes that measured benefits of surgery, but we combined data from all control groups to assess harms and knee surgery (replacement or osteotomy). MAIN RESULTS: Sixteen trials (2105 participants) met our inclusion criteria. The average age of participants ranged from 46 to 65 years, and 56% of participants were women. Four trials (380 participants) compared arthroscopic surgery to placebo surgery. For the remaining trials, arthroscopic surgery was compared to exercise (eight trials, 1371 participants), a single intra-articular glucocorticoid injection (one trial, 120 participants), non-arthroscopic lavage (one trial, 34 participants), non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (one trial, 80 participants) and weekly hyaluronic acid injections for five weeks (one trial, 120 participants). The majority of trials without a placebo control were susceptible to bias: in particular, selection (56%), performance (75%), detection (75%), attrition (44%) and selective reporting (75%) biases. The placebo-controlled trials were less susceptible to bias and none were at risk of performance or detection bias. Here we limit reporting to the main comparison, arthroscopic surgery versus placebo surgery. High-certainty evidence indicates arthroscopic surgery leads to little or no difference in pain or function at three months after surgery, moderate-certainty evidence indicates there is probably little or no improvement in knee-specific quality of life three months after surgery, and low-certainty evidence indicates arthroscopic surgery may lead to little or no difference in participant-reported success at up to five years, compared with placebo surgery. Mean post-operative pain in the placebo group was 40.1 points on a 0 to 100 scale (where lower score indicates less pain) compared to 35.5 points in the arthroscopic surgery group, a difference of 4.6 points better (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.02 better to 9 better; I2 = 0%; 4 trials, 309 participants). Mean post-operative function in the placebo group was 75.9 points on a 0 to 100 rating scale (where higher score indicates better function) compared to 76 points in the arthroscopic surgery group, a difference of 0.1 points better (95% CI 3.2 worse to 3.4 better; I2 = 0%; 3 trials, 302 participants). Mean post-operative knee-specific health-related quality of life in the placebo group was 69.7 points on a 0 to 100 rating scale (where higher score indicates better quality of life) compared with 75.3 points in the arthroscopic surgery group, a difference of 5.6 points better (95% CI 0.36 better to 10.68 better; I2 = 0%; 2 trials, 188 participants). We downgraded this evidence to moderate certainty as the 95% confidence interval does not rule in or rule out a clinically important change. After surgery, 74 out of 100 people reported treatment success with placebo and 82 out of 100 people reported treatment success with arthroscopic surgery at up to five years (risk ratio (RR) 1.11, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.86; I2 = 53%; 3 trials, 189 participants). We downgraded this evidence to low certainty due to serious indirectness (diversity in definition and timing of outcome measurement) and serious imprecision (small number of events). We are less certain if the risk of serious or total adverse events increased with arthroscopic surgery compared to placebo or non-surgical interventions. Serious adverse events were reported in 6 out of 100 people in the control groups and 8 out of 100 people in the arthroscopy groups from eight trials (RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.64 to 2.83; I2 = 47%; 8 trials, 1206 participants). Fifteen out of 100 people reported adverse events with control interventions, and 17 out of 100 people with surgery at up to five years (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.70; I2 = 48%; 9 trials, 1326 participants). The certainty of the evidence was low, downgraded twice due to serious imprecision (small number of events) and possible reporting bias (incomplete reporting of outcome across studies). Serious adverse events included death, pulmonary embolism, acute myocardial infarction, deep vein thrombosis and deep infection. Subsequent knee surgery (replacement or high tibial osteotomy) was reported in 2 out of 100 people in the control groups and 4 out of 100 people in the arthroscopy surgery groups at up to five years in four trials (RR 2.63, 95% CI 0.94 to 7.34; I2 = 11%; 4 trials, 864 participants). The certainty of the evidence was low, downgraded twice due to the small number of events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Arthroscopic surgery provides little or no clinically important benefit in pain or function, probably does not provide clinically important benefits in knee-specific quality of life, and may not improve treatment success compared with a placebo procedure. It may lead to little or no difference, or a slight increase, in serious and total adverse events compared to control, but the evidence is of low certainty. Whether or not arthroscopic surgery results in slightly more subsequent knee surgery (replacement or osteotomy) compared to control remains unresolved.

Autologous blood and platelet-rich plasma injection therapy for lateral elbow pain.

BACKGROUND: Autologous whole blood or platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections are commonly used to treat lateral elbow pain (also known as tennis elbow or lateral epicondylitis or epicondylalgia). Based on animal models and observational studies, these injections may modulate tendon injury healing, but randomised controlled trials have reported inconsistent results regarding benefit for people with lateral elbow pain. OBJECTIVES: To review current evidence on the benefit and safety of autologous whole blood or platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injection for treatment of people with lateral elbow pain. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase for published trials, and Clinicaltrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) search portal for ongoing trials, on 18 September 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing autologous whole blood or PRP injection therapy to another therapy (placebo or active treatment, including non-pharmacological therapies, and comparison between PRP and autologous blood) for lateral elbow pain. The primary comparison was PRP versus placebo. Major outcomes were pain relief (≥ 30% or ≥ 50%), mean pain, mean function, treatment success, quality of life, withdrawal due to adverse events, and adverse events; the primary time point was three months. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We included 32 studies with 2337 participants; 56% of participants were female, mean age varied between 36 and 53 years, and mean duration of symptoms ranged from 1 to 22 months. Seven trials had three intervention arms. Ten trials compared autologous blood or PRP injection to placebo injection (primary comparison). Fifteen trials compared autologous blood or PRP injection to glucocorticoid injection. Four studies compared autologous blood to PRP. Two trials compared autologous blood or PRP injection plus tennis elbow strap and exercise versus tennis elbow strap and exercise alone. Two trials compared PRP injection to surgery, and one trial compared PRP injection and dry needling to dry needling alone. Other comparisons include autologous blood versus extracorporeal shock wave therapy; PRP versus arthroscopic surgery; PRP versus laser; and autologous blood versus polidocanol. Most studies were at risk of selection, performance, and detection biases, mainly due to inadequate allocation concealment and lack of participant blinding. We found moderate-certainty evidence (downgraded for bias) to show that autologous blood or PRP injection probably does not provide clinically significant improvement in pain or function compared with placebo injection at three months. Further, low-certainty evidence (downgraded for bias and imprecision) suggests that PRP may not increase risk for adverse events. We are uncertain whether autologous blood or PRP injection improves treatment success (downgraded for bias, imprecision, and indirectness) or withdrawals due to adverse events (downgraded for bias and twice for imprecision). No studies measured health-related quality of life, and no studies reported pain relief (> 30% or 50%) at three months. At three months, mean pain was 3.7 points (0 to 10; 0 is best) with placebo and 0.16 points better (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60 better to 0.29 worse; 8 studies, 523 participants) with autologous blood or PRP injection, for absolute improvement of 1.6% better (6% better to 3% worse). At three months, mean function was 27.5 points (0 to 100; 0 is best) with placebo and 1.86 points better (95% CI 4.9 better to 1.25 worse; 8 studies, 502 participants) with autologous blood or PRP injection, for absolute benefit of 1.9% (5% better to 1% worse), and treatment success was 121 out of 185 (65%) with placebo versus 125 out of 187 (67%) with autologous blood or PRP injection (risk ratio (RR) 1.00; 95% CI 0.83 to 1.19; 4 studies, 372 participants), for absolute improvement of 0% (11.1% lower to 12.4% higher). Regarding harm, we found very low-certainty evidence to suggest that we are uncertain whether withdrawal rates due to adverse events differed. Low-certainty evidence suggests that autologous blood or PRP injection may not increase adverse events compared with placebo injection. Withdrawal due to adverse events occurred in 3 out of 39 (8%) participants treated with placebo versus 1 out of 41 (2%) treated with autologous blood or PRP injection (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.92; 1 study), for an absolute difference of 5.2% fewer (7.5% fewer to 14.8% more). Adverse event rates were 35 out of 208 (17%) with placebo versus 41 out of 217 (19%) with autologous blood or PRP injection (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.72; 5 studies; 425 participants), for an absolute difference of 2.4% more (4% fewer to 12% more). At six and twelve months, no clinically important benefit for mean pain or function was observed with autologous blood or PRP injection compared with placebo injection. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Data in this review do not support the use of autologous blood or PRP injection for treatment of lateral elbow pain. These injections probably provide little or no clinically important benefit for pain or function (moderate-certainty evidence), and it is uncertain (very low-certainty evidence) whether they improve treatment success and pain relief > 50%, or increase withdrawal due to adverse events. Although risk for harm may not be increased compared with placebo injection (low-certainty evidence), injection therapies cause pain and carry a small risk of infection. With no evidence of benefit, the costs and risks are not justified.

Image-guided glucocorticoid injection versus injection without image guidance for shoulder pain.

BACKGROUND: Despite widespread use, our 2012 Cochrane review did not confirm that use of imaging to guide glucocorticoid injection for people with shoulder pain improves its efficacy. OBJECTIVES: To update our review and assess the benefits and harms of image-guided glucocorticoid injection compared to non-image-guided injection for patients with shoulder pain. SEARCH METHODS: We updated the search of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, via Ovid), MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid) and clinicaltrials.gov to 15 Feb 2021, and the World Health Organisation International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (http://www.who.int/trialsearch/Default.aspx) to 06 July 2020. We also screened reference lists of retrieved review articles and trials to identify potentially relevant studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared image-guided glucocorticoid injection to injection without image guidance (either landmark-guided or intramuscular) injection in patients with shoulder pain (rotator cuff disease, adhesive capsulitis or mixed or undefined shoulder pain). Major outcomes were pain, function, proportion of participants with treatment success, quality of life, adverse events, serious adverse events and withdrawals due to adverse events. Minor outcomes were shoulder range of motion and proportion of participants requiring surgery or additional injections. There were no restrictions on language or date of publication. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodologic procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: Nineteen trials were included (1035 participants). Fourteen trials included participants with rotator cuff disease, four with adhesive capsulitis, and one with mixed or undefined shoulder pain. Trial size varied from 28 to 256 participants, most participants were female, mean age ranged between 31 and 60 years, and mean symptom duration varied from 2 to 23 months. Two trials were at low risk of bias for all criteria. The most notable sources of bias in the remaining trials included performance bias and detection bias. Moderate-certainty evidence (downgraded for bias) indicates that ultrasound-guided injection probably provides little or no clinically important benefits compared with injection without guidance with respect to pain (15 trials) or function (14 trials) at three to six weeks follow-up. It may not improve quality of life (2 trials, low-certainty evidence, downgraded due to potential for bias and imprecision) and we are uncertain about the effect of ultrasound-guided injection on participant-rated treatment success due to very low-certainty evidence (downgraded for bias, inconsistency and imprecision). Mean pain (scale range 0 to 10, higher scores indicate more pain) was 3.1 points with injection without image guidance and 0.5 points better (0.2 points better to 0.8 points better; 1003 participants, 15 trials) with an ultrasound-guided injection. This represents a slight difference for pain (0.5 to 1.0 points on a 0 to 10 scale). Mean function (scale range 0 to 100, higher scores indicate better function) was 68 points with injection without image guidance and 2.4 points better (0.2 points worse to 5.1 points better; 895 participants, 14 trials) with an ultrasound-guided injection. Mean quality of life (scale range 0 to 100, higher scores indicate better quality of life) was 65 with injection without image guidance and 2.8 points better (0.7 worse to 6.4 better; 220 participants, 2 trials) with an ultrasound-guided injection. In five trials (350 participants), 101/175 (or 606 per 1000) people in the ultrasound-guided group reported treatment success compared with 68/175 (or 389 per 1000) people in the group injected without image guidance (RR 1.56 (95% CI 0.89 to 2.75)), an absolute difference of 22% more reported success (4% fewer to 62% more). Low-certainty evidence (downgraded for bias and imprecision) indicates that ultrasound-guided injections may not reduce the risk of adverse events compared to injections without image guidance. In five trials (402 participants), 38/200 (or 181 per 1000) people in the ultrasound-guided group reported adverse events compared with 51/202 (or 252 per 1000) in the non-image-guided injection group (RR 0.72 (95% CI 0.4 to 1.28)), an absolute difference of 7% fewer adverse events (15% fewer to 7% more). Five trials reported that there were no serious adverse events. The remaining trials did not report serious adverse events. One trial reported that 1/53 (or 19 per 1000) in the injection without image guidance group and 0/53 in the ultrasound-guided group withdrew due to adverse events. Sensitivity analyses indicate that the effects for pain and function may have been influenced by selection bias, and the effects for function may have been influenced by detection bias. The test for subgroup differences indicated there were unlikely to be differences in pain and function across different shoulder conditions. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our updated review does not support use of image guidance for injections in the shoulder. Moderate-certainty evidence indicates that ultrasound-guided injection in the treatment of shoulder pain probably provides little or no benefit over injection without imaging in terms of pain or function and low-certainty evidence indicates there may be no difference in quality of life. We are uncertain if ultrasound-guided injection improves participant-rated treatment success, due to very low-certainty evidence. Low-certainty evidence also suggests ultrasound-guided injection may not reduce the risk of adverse events compared with non-image-guided injection. No serious adverse events were reported in any trial. The lack of significant benefit of image guidance over injection without image guidance to improve patient-relevant outcomes or reduce harms, suggests that any added cost of image guidance appears unjustified.

Colchicine for acute gout.

BACKGROUND: This is an updated Cochrane Review, first published in 2006 and updated in 2014. Gout is one of the most common rheumatic diseases worldwide. Despite the use of colchicine as one of the first-line therapies for the treatment of acute gout, evidence for its benefits and harms is relatively limited. OBJECTIVES: To update the available evidence of the benefits and harms of colchicine for the treatment of acute gout. SEARCH METHODS: We updated the search of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Clinicaltrials.gov and WHO ICTRP registries to 28 August 2020. We did not impose any date or language restrictions in the search. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised controlled trials (quasi-RCTs) evaluating colchicine therapy compared with another therapy (placebo or active) in acute gout; low-dose colchicine at clinically relevant doses compared with placebo was the primary comparison. The major outcomes were pain, participant global assessment of treatment success (proportion with 50% or greater decrease in pain from baseline up to 32 to 36 hours), reduction of inflammation, function of target joint, serious adverse events, total adverse events and withdrawals due to adverse events. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures as expected by Cochrane in this review update. MAIN RESULTS: We included four trials (803 randomised participants), including two new trials, in this updated review. One three-arm trial compared high-dose colchicine (52 participants), low-dose colchicine (74 participants) and placebo (59 participants); one trial compared high-dose colchicine with placebo (43 participants); one trial compared low-dose colchicine with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (399 participants); and one trial compared low-dose colchicine with Chuanhu anti-gout mixture (traditional Chinese Medicine compound) (176 participants). We did not identify any trials comparing colchicine to glucocorticoids (by any route). The mean age of participants ranged from 51.2 to 70 years, and trial duration from 48 hours to 12 weeks. Two trials were at low risk of bias, one was possibly susceptible to selection bias (random sequence generation), reporting bias and other bias, and one open-label trial was at high risk of performance and detection bias. For the primary comparison, low-quality evidence from one trial (103 participants, downgraded for imprecision and bias) suggests low-dose colchicine may improve treatment outcome compared to placebo with little or no increased risk of adverse events. The number of people who reported treatment success (50% or greater pain reduction) at 32 to 36 hours was slightly larger with low-dose colchicine (418 per 1000) compared with placebo (172 per 1000; risk ratio (RR) 2.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05 to 5.64; absolute improvement 25% more reported success (7% more to 42% more, the 95% CIs include both a clinically important and unimportant benefit); relative change of 143% more people reported treatment success (5% more to 464% more). The incidence of total adverse events was 364 per 1000 with low-dose colchicine compared with 276 per 1000 with placebo: RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.68 to 2.56; absolute difference 9% more events with low-dose colchicine (9% fewer to 43% more, the 95% CIs include both a clinically important effect and no effect); relative change of 32% more events (32% fewer to 156% more). No participants withdrew due to adverse events or reported any serious adverse events. Pain, inflammation and function were not reported. Low-quality evidence (downgraded for imprecision and bias) from two trials (124 participants) suggests that high-dose colchicine compared to placebo may improve symptoms, but with increased risk of harms. More participants reported treatment success at 32 to 36 hours with high-dose colchicine (518 per 1000) compared with placebo (240 per 1000): RR 2.16, 95% CI 1.28 to 3.65, absolute improvement 28% (8% more to 46% more); more also had reduced inflammation at this time point with high-dose colchicine (504 per 1000) compared with placebo (48 per 1000): RR 10.50, 95% CI 1.48 to 74.38; absolute improvement 45% greater (22% greater to 68% greater); but more adverse events were reported with high-dose colchicine (829 per 1000 compared with 260 per 1000): RR 3.21, 95% CI 2.01 to 5.11, absolute difference 57% (26% more to 74% more). Pain and function were not reported. Low-quality evidence from a single trial comparing high-dose to low-dose colchicine indicates there may be little or no difference in benefit in terms of treatment success at 32 to 36 hours but more adverse events associated with the higher dose. Similarly, low-quality evidence from a single trial indicates there may also be little or no benefit of low-dose colchicine over NSAIDs in terms of treatment success and pain reduction at seven days, with a similar number of adverse events reported at four weeks follow-up. Reduction of inflammation, function of target joint and withdrawals due to adverse events were not reported in either of these trials, and pain was not reported in the high-dose versus low-dose colchicine trial. We were unable to estimate the risk of serious adverse events for most comparisons as there were few events reported in the trials. One trial (399 participants) reported three serious adverse (one in a participant receiving low-dose colchicine and two in participants receiving NSAIDs), due to reasons unrelated to the trial (low-quality evidence downgraded for bias and imprecision). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found low-quality evidence that low-dose colchicine may be an effective treatment for acute gout when compared to placebo and low-quality evidence that its benefits may be similar to NSAIDs. We downgraded the evidence for bias and imprecision. While both high- and low-dose colchicine improve pain when compared to placebo, low-quality evidence suggests that high-dose (but not low-dose) colchicine may increase the number of adverse events compared to placebo, while low-quality evidence indicates that the number of adverse events may be similar with low-dose colchicine and NSAIDs. Further trials comparing colchicine to placebo or other treatment will likely have an important impact on our confidence in the effect estimates and may change the conclusions of this review. There are no trials reporting the effect of colchicine in populations with comorbidities or in comparison with other commonly used treatments, such as glucocorticoids.

Shock wave therapy for rotator cuff disease with or without calcification.

BACKGROUND: Shock wave therapy has seen widespread use since the 1990s to treat various musculoskeletal disorders including rotator cuff disease, but evidence of its efficacy remains equivocal. OBJECTIVES: To determine the benefits and harms of shock wave therapy for rotator cuff disease, with or without calcification, and to establish its usefulness in the context of other available treatment options. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP up to November 2019, with no restrictions on language. We reviewed the reference lists of retrieved trials to identify potentially relevant trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) that used quasi-randomised methods to allocate participants, investigating participants with rotator cuff disease with or without calcific deposits. We included trials of comparisons of extracorporeal or radial shock wave therapy versus any other intervention. Major outcomes were pain relief greater than 30%, mean pain score, function, patient-reported global assessment of treatment success, quality of life, number of participants experiencing adverse events and number of withdrawals due to adverse events. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. The primary comparison was shock wave therapy compared to placebo. MAIN RESULTS: Thirty-two trials (2281 participants) met our inclusion criteria. Most trials (25) included participants with rotator cuff disease and calcific deposits, five trials included participants with rotator cuff disease and no calcific deposits, and two trials included a mixed population of participants with and without calcific deposits. Twelve trials compared shock wave therapy to placebo, 11 trials compared high-dose shock wave therapy (0.2 mJ/mm² to 0.4 mJ/mm² and above) to low-dose shock wave therapy. Single trials compared shock wave therapy to ultrasound-guided glucocorticoid needling, ultrasound-guided hyaluronic acid injection, transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation (TENS), no treatment or exercise; dual session shock wave therapy to single session therapy; and different delivery methods of shock wave therapy. Our main comparison was shock wave therapy versus placebo and results are reported for the 3 month follow up. All trials were susceptible to bias; including selection (74%), performance (62%), detection (62%), and selective reporting (45%) biases. No trial measured participant-reported pain relief of 30%. However, in one trial (74 participants), at 3 months follow up, 14/34 participants reported pain relief of 50% or greater with shock wave therapy compared with 15/40 with placebo (risk ratio (RR) 1.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62 to 1.94); low-quality evidence (downgraded for bias and imprecision). Mean pain (0 to 10 scale, higher scores indicate more pain) was 3.02 points in the placebo group and 0.78 points better (0.17 better to 1.4 better; clinically important change was 1.5 points) with shock wave therapy (9 trials, 608 participants), moderate-quality evidence (downgraded for bias). Mean function (scale 0 to 100, higher scores indicate better function) was 66 points with placebo and 7.9 points better (1.6 better to 14 better, clinically important difference 10 points) with shock wave therapy (9 trials, 612 participants), moderate-quality evidence (downgraded for bias). Participant-reported success was reported by 58/150 people in shock wave therapy group compared with 35/137 people in placebo group (RR 1.59, 95% CI 0.87 to 2.91; 6 trials, 287 participants), low-quality evidence (downgraded for bias and imprecision). None of the trials measured quality of life. Withdrawal rate or adverse event rates may not differ between extracorporeal shock wave therapy and placebo, but we are uncertain due to the small number of events. There were 11/34 withdrawals in the extracorporeal shock wave therapy group compared with 13/40 withdrawals in the placebo group (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.31; 7 trials, 581 participants) low-quality evidence (downgraded for bias and imprecision); and 41/156 adverse events with extracorporeal shock wave therapy compared with 10/139 adverse events in the placebo group (RR 3.61, 95% CI 2.00 to 6.52; 5 trials, 295 participants) low-quality evidence (downgraded for bias and imprecision). Subgroup analyses indicated that there were no between-group differences in pain and function outcomes in participants who did or did not have calcific deposits in the rotator cuff. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based upon the currently available low- to moderate-certainty evidence, there were very few clinically important benefits of shock wave therapy, and uncertainty regarding its safety. Wide clinical diversity and varying treatment protocols means that we do not know whether or not some trials tested subtherapeutic doses, possibly underestimating any potential benefits. Further trials of extracorporeal shock wave therapy for rotator cuff disease should be based upon a strong rationale and consideration of whether or not they would alter the conclusions of this review. A standard dose and treatment protocol should be decided upon before further research is conducted. Development of a core set of outcomes for trials of rotator cuff disease and other shoulder disorders would also facilitate our ability to synthesise the evidence.

Surgery for rotator cuff tears.

BACKGROUND: This review is one in a series of Cochrane Reviews of interventions for shoulder disorders. OBJECTIVES: To synthesise the available evidence regarding the benefits and harms of rotator cuff repair with or without subacromial decompression in the treatment of rotator cuff tears of the shoulder. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Clinicaltrials.gov and WHO ICRTP registry unrestricted by date or language until 8 January 2019. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) including adults with full-thickness rotator cuff tears and assessing the effect of rotator cuff repair compared to placebo, no treatment, or any other treatment were included. As there were no trials comparing surgery with placebo, the primary comparison was rotator cuff repair with or without subacromial decompression versus non-operative treatment (exercises with or without glucocorticoid injection). Other comparisons were rotator cuff repair and acromioplasty versus rotator cuff repair alone, and rotator cuff repair and subacromial decompression versus subacromial decompression alone. Major outcomes were mean pain, shoulder function, quality of life, participant-rated global assessment of treatment success, adverse events and serious adverse events. The primary endpoint for this review was one year. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodologic procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We included nine trials with 1007 participants. Three trials compared rotator cuff repair with subacromial decompression followed by exercises with exercise alone. These trials included 339 participants with full-thickness rotator cuff tears diagnosed with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or ultrasound examination. One of the three trials also provided up to three glucocorticoid injections in the exercise group. All surgery groups received tendon repair with subacromial decompression and the postoperative exercises were similar to the exercises provided for the non-operative groups. Five trials (526 participants) compared repair with acromioplasty versus repair alone; and one trial (142 participants) compared repair with subacromial decompression versus subacromial decompression alone. The mean age of trial participants ranged between 56 and 68 years, and females comprised 29% to 56% of the participants. Symptom duration varied from a mean of 10 months up to 28 months. Two trials excluded tears with traumatic onset of symptoms. One trial defined a minimum duration of symptoms of six months and required a trial of conservative therapy before inclusion. The trials included mainly repairable full-thickness supraspinatus tears, six trials specifically excluded tears involving the subscapularis tendon. All trials were at risk of bias for several criteria, most notably due to lack of participant and personnel blinding, but also for other reasons such as unclearly reported methods of random sequence generation or allocation concealment (six trials), incomplete outcome data (three trials), selective reporting (six trials), and other biases (six trials). Our main comparison was subacromial decompression versus non-operative treatment and results are reported for the 12 month follow up. At one year, moderate-certainty evidence (downgraded for bias) from 3 trials with 258 participants indicates that surgery probably provides little or no improvement in pain; mean pain (range 0 to 10, higher scores indicate more pain) was 1.6 points with non-operative treatment and 0.87 points better (0.43 better to 1.30 better) with surgery.. Mean function (zero to 100, higher score indicating better outcome) was 72 points with non-operative treatment and 6 points better (2.43 better to 9.54 better) with surgery (3 trials; 269 participants), low-certainty evidence (downgraded for bias and imprecision). Participant-rated global success rate was 873/1000 after non-operative treatment and 943/1000 after surgery corresponding to (risk ratio (RR) 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.96 to 1.22; low-certainty evidence (downgraded for bias and imprecision). Health-related quality of life was 57.5 points (SF-36 mental component score, 0 to 100, higher score indicating better quality of life) with non-operative treatment and 1.3 points worse (4.5 worse to 1.9 better) with surgery (1 trial; 103 participants), low-certainty evidence (downgraded for bias and imprecision). We were unable to estimate the risk of adverse events and serious adverse events as only one event was reported across the trials (very low-certainty evidence; downgraded once due to bias and twice due to very serious imprecision). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: At the moment, we are uncertain whether rotator cuff repair surgery provides clinically meaningful benefits to people with symptomatic tears; it may provide little or no clinically important benefits with respect to pain, function, overall quality of life or participant-rated global assessment of treatment success when compared with non-operative treatment. Surgery may not improve shoulder pain or function compared with exercises, with or without glucocorticoid injections. The trials included have methodology concerns and none included a placebo control. They included participants with mostly small degenerative tears involving the supraspinatus tendon and the conclusions of this review may not be applicable to traumatic tears, large tears involving the subscapularis tendon or young people. Furthermore, the trials did not assess if surgery could prevent arthritic changes in long-term follow-up. Further well-designed trials in this area that include a placebo-surgery control group and long follow-up are needed to further increase certainty about the effects of surgery for rotator cuff tears.

Surgery for patellar tendinopathy (jumper's knee).

BACKGROUND: Patellar tendinopathy is an overuse condition that commonly affects athletes. Surgery is usually offered if medical and physical therapies fail to treat it effectively. There is variation in the type of surgery performed for the condition. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of surgery for patellar tendinopathy in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases, to 17 July 2018: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Library, OVID MEDLINE, OVID Embase, clinical trial registries (www.ClinicalTrials.gov) and the WHO trials portal (www.who.int/ictrp/en/). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared surgical techniques (open or arthroscopic) with non-operative treatment (including placebo surgery, exercise or other non-surgical modalities) in adults with patellar tendinopathy.Major outcomes assessed were knee pain, function, quality of life, participant global assessment of success, withdrawal rate, proportion with adverse events and proportion with tendon rupture. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors selected studies for inclusion, extracted trial characteristics and outcome data, assessed the risk of bias and assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: Two trials (92 participants) met our inclusion criteria. Participants in both trials were followed for 12 months. Neither trial compared surgery to placebo surgery. One trial (40 randomised participants) compared open surgical excision with eccentric exercises, and the other compared arthroscopic surgery with sclerosing injections (52 randomised participants). Due to the nature of the interventions, neither the participants or the investigators were blinded to the group allocation, resulting in the potential for performance and detection bias. Some outcomes were selectively not recorded, leading to reporting bias. Overall, the certainty of the evidence from these studies was low for all outcomes due to the potential for bias, and imprecision due to small sample sizes.Compared with eccentric exercises, low-certainty evidence indicates that open surgical excision provides no clinically important benefits with respect to knee pain, function or global assessment of success. At 12 months, mean knee pain - measured by pain with standing jump on a 10-point scale (lower scores indicating less pain) - was 1.7 points (standard deviation (SD) 1.6) in the eccentric training group and 1.3 (SD 0.8) in the surgical group (one trial, 40 participants). This equates to an absolute pain reduction of 4% (ranging from 4% worse to 12% better, the minimal clinically important difference being 15%) and a relative reduction in pain of 10% better (ranging from 30% better to 10% worse) in the treatment group. At 12 months, function on the zero- to 100-point Victorian Institute of Sport Assessment (VISA) scale was 65.7 (SD 23.8) in the eccentric training group and 72.9 (SD 11.7) in the surgical group (one trial, 40 participants). This equates to an absolute change of 7% better function (ranging from 4% worse to 19% better) and relative change of 25% better (ranging from 15% worse to 65% better, the minimal clinically important difference being 13%). Participant global assessment of success was measured by the number of people with no pain at 12 months: 7/20 participants in the eccentric training group reported no pain, compared with 5/20 in the open surgical group (risk ratio (RR) 0.71 (95% CI 0.27 to 1.88); one trial, 40 participants). There were no withdrawals, but five out of 20 people from the eccentric exercise group crossed over to open surgical excision. Quality of life, adverse events and tendon ruptures were not measured.Compared with sclerosing injection, low-certainty evidence indicates that arthroscopic surgery may provide a reduction in pain and improvement in participant global assessment of success, however further studies are likely to change these results. At 12 months, mean pain with activities, measured on a 100-point scale (lower scores indicating less pain), was 41.1 (SD 28.5) in the sclerosing injection group and 12.8 (SD 19.3) in the arthroscopic surgery group (one trial, 52 participants). This equates to an absolute pain reduction of 28% better (ranging from 15% to 42% better, the minimal clinically important difference being 15%), and a relative change of 41% better (ranging from 21% to 61% better). At 12 months, the mean participant global assessment of success, measured by satisfaction on a 100-point scale (scale zero to 100, higher scores indicating greater satisfaction), was 52.9 (SD 32.6) in the sclerosing injection group and 86.8 (SD 20.8) in the arthroscopic surgery group (one trial, 52 participants). This equates to an absolute improvement of 34% (ranging from 19% to 49%). In both groups, one participant (4%) withdrew from the study. Functional outcome scores, including the VISA score, were not reported. Quality-of-life assessment, adverse events, and specifically the proportion with a tendon rupture, were not reported.We did not perform subgroup analysis to assess differences in outcome between arthroscopic or open surgical excision, as we did not identify more than one study with a common comparator. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are uncertain if surgery is beneficial over other therapeutic interventions, namely eccentric exercises or injectables. Low-certainty evidence shows that surgery for patellar tendinopathy may not provide clinically important benefits over eccentric exercise in terms of pain, function or participant-reported treatment success, but may provide clinically meaningful pain reduction and treatment success when compared with sclerosing injections. However, further research is likely to change these results. The evidence was downgraded two levels due to the small sample sizes and susceptibility to bias. We are uncertain if there are additional risks associated with surgery as study authors failed to report adverse events. Surgery seems to be embedded in clinical practice for late-stage patella tendinopathy, due to exhaustion of other therapeutic methods rather than evidence of benefit.

Subfascial endoscopic perforator surgery (SEPS) for treating venous leg ulcers.

BACKGROUND: Venous leg ulcers are complex, costly, and their prevalence is expected to increase as populations age. Venous congestion is a possible cause of venous leg ulcers, which subfascial endoscopic perforator surgery (SEPS) attempts to address by removing the connection between deep and superficial veins (perforator veins). The effectiveness of SEPS in the treatment of venous leg ulcers, however, is unclear. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of subfascial endoscopic perforator surgery (SEPS) for the treatment of venous leg ulcers. SEARCH METHODS: In March 2018 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions that examined the use of SEPS independently or in combination with another intervention for the treatment of venous leg ulcers. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included four RCTs with a total of 322 participants. There were three different comparators: SEPS plus compression therapy versus compression therapy (two trials); SEPS versus the Linton procedure (a type of open surgery) (one trial); and SEPS plus saphenous surgery versus saphenous surgery (one trial). The age range of participants was 30 to 82, with an equal spread of male and female participants. All trials were conducted in hospital settings with varying durations of follow-up, from 18 months to 6 years. One trial included participants who had both healed and active ulcers, with the rest including only participants with active ulcers.There was the potential for reporting bias in all trials and performance bias and detection bias in three trials. Participants in the fourth trial received one of two surgical procedures, and this study was at low risk of performance bias and detection bias.SEPS + compression therapy versus compression therapy (2 studies; 208 participants)There may be an increase in the proportion of healed ulcers at 24 months in people treated with SEPS and compression therapy compared with compression therapy alone (risk ratio (RR) 1.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03 to 1.33; 1 study; 196 participants); low-certainty evidence (downgraded twice, once for risk of bias and once for imprecision).It is uncertain whether SEPS reduces the risk of ulcer recurrence at 24 months (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.26 to 2.76; 2 studies; 208 participants); very low-certainty evidence (downgraded three times, twice for very serious imprecision and once for risk of bias).The included trials did not measure or report the following outcomes; time to complete healing, health-related quality of life (HRQOL), adverse events, pain, duration of hospitalisation, and district nursing care requirements.SEPS versus Linton approach (1 study; 39 participants)It is uncertain whether there is a difference in ulcer healing at 24 months between participants treated with SEPS and those treated with the Linton procedure (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.09; 1 study; 39 participants); very low-certainty evidence (downgraded three times, twice for very serious imprecision and once for risk of bias).It is also uncertain whether there is a difference in risk of recurrence at 60 months: (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.10 to 2.30; 1 study; 39 participants); very low-certainty evidence (downgraded three times, twice for very serious imprecision and once for risk of bias).The Linton procedure is possibly associated with more adverse events than SEPS (RR 0.04, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.60; 1 study; 39 participants); very low-certainty evidence (downgraded three times, twice for very serious imprecision and once for risk of bias).The outcomes time to complete healing, HRQOL, pain, duration of hospitalisation and district nursing care requirements were either not measured, reported or data were not available for analysis.SEPS + saphenous surgery versus saphenous surgery (1 study; 75 participants)It is uncertain whether there is a difference in ulcer healing at 12 months between participants treated with SEPS and saphenous surgery versus those treated with saphenous surgery alone (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.43; 1 study; 22 participants); very low certainty evidence (downgraded three times, twice for very serious imprecision and once for high risk of reporting bias).It is also uncertain whether there is a difference in the risk of recurrence at 12 months: (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.15 to 6.91; 1 study; 75 participants); very low certainty evidence (downgraded three times, twice for very serious imprecision and once for high risk of reporting bias).Finally, we are uncertain whether there is an increase in adverse events in the SEPS group (RR 2.05, 95% CI 0.86 to 4.90; 1 study; 75 participants); very low certainty evidence (downgraded three times, twice for very serious imprecision and once for high risk of reporting bias).The outcomes time to complete healing, HRQOL, serious adverse events, pain, duration of hospitalisation, and district nursing care requirements were either not measured, reported or data were not available for analysis. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The role of SEPS for the treatment of venous leg ulcers remains uncertain. Only low or very low-certainty evidence was available for inclusion. Due to small sample sizes and risk of bias in the included studies, we were unable to determine the potential benefits and harms of SEPS for this purpose. Only four studies met our inclusion criteria, three were very small, and one was poorly reported. Further high-quality studies addressing the use of SEPS in venous leg ulcer management are likely to change the conclusions of this review.

Subacromial decompression surgery for rotator cuff disease.

BACKGROUND: Surgery for rotator cuff disease is usually used after non-operative interventions have failed, although our Cochrane Review, first published in 2007, found that there was uncertain clinical benefit following subacromial decompression surgery. OBJECTIVES: To synthesise the available evidence of the benefits and harms of subacromial decompression surgery compared with placebo, no intervention or non-surgical interventions in people with rotator cuff disease (excluding full thickness rotator cuff tears). SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Clinicaltrials.gov and WHO ICRTP registry from 2006 until 22 October 2018, unrestricted by language. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adults with rotator cuff disease (excluding full-thickness tears), that compared subacromial decompression surgery with placebo, no treatment, or any other non-surgical interventions. As it is least prone to bias, subacromial decompression compared with placebo was the primary comparison. Other comparisons were subacromial decompression versus exercises or non-operative treatment. Major outcomes were mean pain scores, shoulder function, quality of life, participant global assessment of success, adverse events and serious adverse events. The primary endpoint for this review was one year. For serious adverse events, we also included data from prospective cohort studies designed to record harms that evaluated subacromial decompression surgery or shoulder arthroscopy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodologic procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We included eight trials, with a total of 1062 randomised participants with rotator cuff disease, all with subacromial impingement. Two trials (506 participants) compared arthroscopic subacromial decompression with arthroscopy only (placebo surgery), with all groups receiving postoperative exercises. These trials included a third treatment group: no treatment (active monitoring) in one and exercises in the other. Six trials (556 participants) compared arthroscopic subacromial decompression followed by exercises with exercises alone. Two of these trials included a third arm: sham laser in one and open subacromial decompression in the other.Trial size varied from 42 to 313 participants. Participant mean age ranged between 42 and 65 years. Only two trials reported mean symptom duration (18 to 22 months in one trial and 30 to 31 months in the other), two did not report duration and four reported it categorically.Both placebo-controlled trials were at low risk of bias for the comparison of surgery versus placebo surgery. The other trials were at high risk of bias for several criteria, most notably at risk of performance or detection bias due to lack of participant and personnel blinding. We have restricted the reporting of results of benefits in the Abstract to the placebo-controlled trials.Compared with placebo, high-certainty evidence indicates that subacromial decompression provides no improvement in pain, shoulder function, or health-related quality of life up to one year, and probably no improvement in global success (moderate-certainty evidence, downgraded due to imprecision).At one year, mean pain (on a scale zero to 10, higher scores indicate more pain), was 2.9 points after placebo surgery and 0.26 better (0.84 better to 0.33 worse), after subacromial decompression (284 participants), an absolute difference of 3% (8% better to 3% worse), and relative difference of 4% (12% better to 5% worse). At one year, mean function (on a scale 0 to 100, higher score indicating better outcome), was 69 points after placebo surgery and 2.8 better (1.4 worse to 6.9 better), after surgery (274 participants), an absolute difference of 3% (7% better to 1% worse), and relative difference of 9% (22% better to 4% worse). Global success rate was 97/148 (or 655 per 1000), after placebo and 101/142 (or 708 per 1000) after surgery corresponding to RR 1.08 (95% CI 0.93 to 1.27). Health-related quality of life was 0.73 units (European Quality of Life EQ-5D, -0.59 to 1, higher score indicating better quality of life), after placebo and 0.03 units worse (0.011 units worse to 0.06 units better), after subacromial decompression (285 participants), an absolute difference of 1.3% (5% worse to 2.5% better), and relative difference of 4% (15% worse to 7% better).Adverse events including frozen shoulder or transient minor complications of surgery were reported in approximately 3% of participants across treatment groups in two randomised controlled trials, but due to low event rates we are uncertain if the risks differ between groups: 5/165 (37 per 1000) reported adverse events with subacromial decompression and 9/241 (34 per 1000) with placebo or non-operative treatment, RR 0.91 (95% CI 0.31 to 2.65) (moderate-certainty evidence, downgraded due to imprecision). The trials did not report serious adverse events.Based upon moderate-certainty evidence from two observational trials from the same prospective surgery registry, which also included other shoulder arthroscopic procedures (downgraded for indirectness), the incidence proportion of serious adverse events within 30 days following surgery was 0.5% (0.4% to 0.7%; data collected 2006 to 2011), or 0.6% (0.5 % to 0.7%; data collected 2011 to 2013). Serious adverse events such as deep infection, pulmonary embolism, nerve injury, and death have been observed in participants following shoulder surgery. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The data in this review do not support the use of subacromial decompression in the treatment of rotator cuff disease manifest as painful shoulder impingement. High-certainty evidence shows that subacromial decompression does not provide clinically important benefits over placebo in pain, function or health-related quality of life. Including results from open-label trials (with high risk of bias) did not change the estimates considerably. Due to imprecision, we downgraded the certainty of the evidence to moderate for global assessment of treatment success; there was probably no clinically important benefit in this outcome either compared with placebo, exercises or non-operative treatment.Adverse event rates were low, 3% or less across treatment groups in the trials, which is consistent with adverse event rates reported in the two observational studies. Although precise estimates are unknown, the risk of serious adverse events is likely less than 1%.

Surgical versus conservative interventions for treating fractures of the middle third of the clavicle.

BACKGROUND: Clavicle fractures are common, accounting for 2.6% to 4% of all fractures. Eighty per cent of clavicle fractures are located in the middle third of the clavicle. Although treatment of these fractures is usually non-surgical, displaced clavicle fractures may be considered for surgical treatment because of their greater risk of non-union. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2013. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects (benefits and harms) of surgical versus conservative interventions for treating middle third clavicle fractures. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, trials registries and reference lists updated to December 2017. We did not apply any language or publication restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials evaluating surgical versus conservative interventions for treating fractures in the middle third of the clavicle. The primary outcomes were shoulder function or disability, pain and treatment failure, defined as the number of participants who had been given a non-routine secondary surgical intervention (excluding hardware removal), for symptomatic non-union, malunion or other complications. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors selected eligible studies, independently assessed risk of bias and cross-checked data. Where appropriate, we pooled results of comparable studies. MAIN RESULTS: We included 14 studies involving 1469 participants with acute middle third clavicle fractures. All studies included adults, with the overall range from 17 to 70 years. Of the studies that reported gender, men were over-represented. Ten studies compared plate fixation with sling or figure-of-eight bandage, or both, and four studies compared intramedullary fixation with wearing either a sling or a figure-of-eight bandage. Almost all studies had design features that carry a high risk of bias, thus limiting the strength of their findings.Low-quality evidence from 10 studies (838 participants), showed that, compared with conservative treatment, surgical treatment of acute middle third clavicle fractures may not improve upper arm function at follow-up of one year or longer: standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.33, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.02 to 0.67. We downgraded the quality of the evidence because of risk of bias and high statistical heterogeneity (I2 = 83%). This corresponds to a mean improvement of 2.3 points in favour of surgery (0.14 points worse to 4.69 points better), on the 100-point Constant score; this does not represent a clinically important difference. There may be no difference in pain measured using a visual analogue scale (0 to 100 mm; higher scores mean worse pain) between treatments (mean difference (MD) -0.60 mm, 95% CI -3.51 to 2.31; 277 participants, 3 studies; low-quality evidence reflecting risk of bias and imprecision). Surgery may reduce the risk of treatment failure, that is, number of participants who had non-routine secondary surgical intervention (excluding hardware removal), for symptomatic non-union, malunion or other complication (risk ratio (RR) 0.32, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.50; 1197 participants, 12 studies; low-quality evidence, downgraded for risk of bias and imprecision). The main source of treatment failure was mechanical failure (3.4%) in the surgery group and symptomatic non-union (11.6%) in the conservative-treatment group.We are uncertain whether surgery results in fewer people having one or more cosmetic problems, such as deformities, which were more common after conservative treatment, or hardware prominence or scarring, which only occurred in the surgery group (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.98; 1130 participants, 11 studies; I2 = 63%; very low-quality evidence downgraded for risk of bias, imprecision and inconsistency). We are uncertain whether there is any difference between surgery and conservative treatment in the risk of incurring an adverse outcome that includes local infection, dehiscence, symptomatic malunion, discomfort leading to implant removal, skin and nerve problems: RR 1.34, 95% CI 0.68 to 2.64; 1317 participants, 14 studies; I2 = 72%; very low-quality evidence, downgraded for risk of bias, imprecision and inconsistency). Hardware removal for discomfort was a common adverse outcome in the surgery group (10.2%) while symptomatic malunion was more common in the conservative-treatment group (11.3% versus 1.2% in the surgery group). Infection occurred only in the surgery group (3.2%). There may be no between-group difference in quality of life at one year (SF-12 or SF-36 physical component scores: 0 to 100 scale, where 100 is the best score): MD 0.30 (95% CI -1.95 to 2.56, 321 participants, 2 studies; low-quality evidence downgraded for risk of bias and imprecision). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is low-quality evidence that surgical treatment has no additional benefits in terms of function, pain and quality of life compared with conservative treatment, but may result in fewer treatment failures overall. Very low-quality evidence means that we are very uncertain of the findings of a slightly better cosmetic result after surgery and of no difference between surgical and conservative treatment in the risk of adverse events. For both composite outcomes, there is a need to consider the balance of risks between the individual outcomes; for example, surgical adverse events, including wound infection or dehiscence and hardware irritation, against risk of adverse events that may be more commonly associated with conservative treatment such as symptomatic malunion and shoulder stiffness.Treatment options must be chosen on an individual patient basis, after careful consideration of the relative benefits and harms of each intervention and of patient preferences.

Scoping review of priority setting of research topics for musculoskeletal conditions.

OBJECTIVE: Describe research methods used in priority-setting exercises for musculoskeletal conditions and synthesise the priorities identified. DESIGN: Scoping review. SETTING AND POPULATION: Studies that elicited the research priorities of patients/consumers, clinicians, researchers, policy-makers and/or funders for any musculoskeletal condition were included. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE from inception to November 2017 and the James Lind Alliance top 10 priorities, Cochrane Priority Setting Methods Group, and Cochrane Musculoskeletal and Back Groups review priority lists. The reported methods and research topics/questions identified were extracted, and a descriptive synthesis conducted. RESULTS: Forty-nine articles fulfilled our inclusion criteria. Methodologies and stakeholders varied widely (26 included a mix of clinicians, consumers and others, 16 included only clinicians, 6 included only consumers or patients and in 1 participants were unclear). Only two (4%) reported any explicit inclusion criteria for priorities. We identified 294 broad research priorities from 37 articles and 246 specific research questions from 17 articles, although only four (24%) of the latter listed questions in an actionable format. Research priorities for osteoarthritis were identified most often (n=7), followed by rheumatoid arthritis (n=4), osteoporosis (n=4) and back pain (n=4). Nearly half of both broad and specific research priorities were focused on treatment interventions (n=116 and 111, respectively), while few were economic (n=8, 2.7% broad and n=1, 0.4% specific), implementation (n=6, 2% broad and n=4, 1.6% specific) or health services and systems research (n=15, 5.1% broad and n=9, 3.7% specific) priorities. CONCLUSIONS: While many research priority-setting studies in the musculoskeletal field have been performed, methodological limitations and lack of actionable research questions limit their usefulness. Future studies should ensure they conform to good priority-setting practice to ensure that the generated priorities are of maximum value. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017059250.

Percutaneous vertebroplasty for osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture.

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous vertebroplasty remains widely used to treat osteoporotic vertebral fractures although our 2015 Cochrane review did not support its role in routine practice. OBJECTIVES: To update the available evidence of the benefits and harms of vertebroplasty for treatment of osteoporotic vertebral fractures. SEARCH METHODS: We updated the search of CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase and trial registries to 15 November 2017. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adults with painful osteoporotic vertebral fractures, comparing vertebroplasty with placebo (sham), usual care, or another intervention. As it is least prone to bias, vertebroplasty compared with placebo was the primary comparison. Major outcomes were mean overall pain, disability, disease-specific and overall health-related quality of life, patient-reported treatment success, new symptomatic vertebral fractures and number of other serious adverse events. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodologic procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-one trials were included: five compared vertebroplasty with placebo (541 randomised participants), eight with usual care (1136 randomised participants), seven with kyphoplasty (968 randomised participants) and one compared vertebroplasty with facet joint glucocorticoid injection (217 randomised participants). Trial size varied from 46 to 404 participants, most participants were female, mean age ranged between 62.6 and 81 years, and mean symptom duration varied from a week to more than six months.Four placebo-controlled trials were at low risk of bias and one was possibly susceptible to performance and detection bias. Other trials were at risk of bias for several criteria, most notably due to lack of participant and personnel blinding.Compared with placebo, high- to moderate-quality evidence from five trials indicates that vertebroplasty provides no clinically important benefits with respect to pain, disability, disease-specific or overall quality of life or treatment success at one month. Evidence for quality of life and treatment success was downgraded due to possible imprecision. Evidence was not downgraded for potential publication bias as only one placebo-controlled trial remains unreported. Mean pain (on a scale zero to 10, higher scores indicate more pain) was five points with placebo and 0.7 points better (0.3 better to 1.2 better) with vertebroplasty, an absolute pain reduction of 7% (3% better to 12% better, minimal clinical important difference is 15%) and relative reduction of 10% (4% better to 17% better) (five trials, 535 participants). Mean disability measured by the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (scale range zero to 23, higher scores indicate worse disability) was 14.2 points in the placebo group and 1.5 points better (0.4 better to 2.6 better) in the vertebroplasty group, absolute improvement 7% (2% to 11% better), relative improvement 9% better (2% to 15% better) (four trials, 472 participants).Disease-specific quality of life measured by the Quality of Life Questionnaire of the European Foundation for Osteoporosis (QUALEFFO) (scale zero to 100, higher scores indicating worse quality of life) was 62 points in the placebo group and 2.3 points better (1.4 points worse to 6.7 points better), an absolute imrovement of 2% (1% worse to 6% better); relative improvement 4% better (2% worse to 10% better) (three trials, 351 participants). Overall quality of life (European Quality of Life (EQ5D), zero = death to 1 = perfect health, higher scores indicate greater quality of life) was 0.38 points in the placebo group and 0.05 points better (0.01 better to 0.09 better) in the vertebroplasty group, absolute improvement: 5% (1% to 9% better), relative improvement: 18% (4% to 32% better) (three trials, 285 participants). In one trial (78 participants), 9/40 (or 225 per 1000) people perceived that treatment was successful in the placebo group compared with 12/38 (or 315 per 1000; 95% CI 150 to 664) in the vertebroplasty group, RR 1.40 (95% CI 0.67 to 2.95), absolute difference: 9% more reported success (11% fewer to 29% more); relative change: 40% more reported success (33% fewer to 195% more).Low-quality evidence (downgraded due to imprecision and potential for bias from the usual-care controlled trials) indicates uncertainty around the risk estimates of harms with vertebroplasty. The incidence of new symptomatic vertebral fractures (from six trials) was 48/418 (95 per 1000; range 34 to 264)) in the vertebroplasty group compared with 31/422 (73 per 1000) in the control group; RR 1.29 (95% CI 0.46 to 3.62)). The incidence of other serious adverse events (five trials) was 16/408 (34 per 1000, range 18 to 62) in the vertebroplasty group compared with 23/413 (56 per 1000) in the control group; RR 0.61 (95% CI 0.33 to 1.10). Notably, serious adverse events reported with vertebroplasty included osteomyelitis, cord compression, thecal sac injury and respiratory failure.Our subgroup analyses indicate that the effects did not differ according to duration of pain (acute versus subacute). Including data from the eight trials that compared vertebroplasty with usual care in a sensitivity analyses altered the primary results, with all combined analyses displaying considerable heterogeneity. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found high- to moderate-quality evidence that vertebroplasty has no important benefit in terms of pain, disability, quality of life or treatment success in the treatment of acute or subacute osteoporotic vertebral fractures in routine practice when compared with a sham procedure. Results were consistent across the studies irrespective of the average duration of pain.Sensitivity analyses confirmed that open trials comparing vertebroplasty with usual care are likely to have overestimated any benefit of vertebroplasty. Correcting for these biases would likely drive any benefits observed with vertebroplasty towards the null, in keeping with findings from the placebo-controlled trials.Numerous serious adverse events have been observed following vertebroplasty. However due to the small number of events, we cannot be certain about whether or not vertebroplasty results in a clinically important increased risk of new symptomatic vertebral fractures and/or other serious adverse events. Patients should be informed about both the high- to moderate-quality evidence that shows no important benefit of vertebroplasty and its potential for harm.

Percutaneous vertebroplasty for osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture.

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous vertebroplasty remains widely used to treat osteoporotic vertebral fractures although our 2015 Cochrane review did not support its role in routine practice. OBJECTIVES: To update the available evidence of the benefits and harms of vertebroplasty for treatment of osteoporotic vertebral fractures. SEARCH METHODS: We updated the search of CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase and trial registries to 15 November 2017. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adults with painful osteoporotic vertebral fractures, comparing vertebroplasty with placebo (sham), usual care, or another intervention. As it is least prone to bias, vertebroplasty compared with placebo was the primary comparison. Major outcomes were mean overall pain, disability, disease-specific and overall health-related quality of life, patient-reported treatment success, new symptomatic vertebral fractures and number of other serious adverse events. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodologic procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-one trials were included: five compared vertebroplasty with placebo (541 randomised participants), eight with usual care (1136 randomised participants), seven with kyphoplasty (968 randomised participants) and one compared vertebroplasty with facet joint glucocorticoid injection (217 randomised participants). Trial size varied from 46 to 404 participants, most participants were female, mean age ranged between 62.6 and 81 years, and mean symptom duration varied from a week to more than six months.Three placebo-controlled trials were at low risk of bias and two were possibly susceptible to performance and detection bias. Other trials were at risk of bias for several criteria, most notably due to lack of participant and personnel blinding.Compared with placebo, high- to moderate-quality evidence from five trials (one with incomplete data reported) indicates that vertebroplasty provides no clinically important benefits with respect to pain, disability, disease-specific or overall quality of life or treatment success at one month. Evidence for quality of life and treatment success was downgraded due to possible imprecision. Evidence was not downgraded for potential publication bias as only one placebo-controlled trial remains unreported. Mean pain (on a scale zero to 10, higher scores indicate more pain) was five points with placebo and 0.6 points better (0.2 better to 1 better) with vertebroplasty, an absolute pain reduction of 6% (2% better to 10% better, minimal clinical important difference is 15%) and relative reduction of 9% (3% better to14% better) (five trials, 535 participants). Mean disability measured by the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (scale range zero to 23, higher scores indicate worse disability) was 14.2 points in the placebo group and 1.7 points better (0.3 better to 3.1 better) in the vertebroplasty group, absolute improvement 7% (1% to 14% better), relative improvement 10% better (3% to 18% better) (three trials, 296 participants).Disease-specific quality of life measured by the Quality of Life Questionnaire of the European Foundation for Osteoporosis (QUALEFFO) (scale zero to 100, higher scores indicating worse quality of life) was 62 points in the placebo group and 2.75 points (3.53 worse to 9.02 better) in the vertebroplasty group, absolute change: 3% better (4% worse to 9% better), relative change: 5% better (6% worse to 15% better (two trials, 175 participants). Overall quality of life (European Quality of Life (EQ5D), zero = death to 1 = perfect health, higher scores indicate greater quality of life) was 0.38 points in the placebo group and 0.05 points better (0.01 better to 0.09 better) in the vertebroplasty group, absolute improvement: 5% (1% to 9% better), relative improvement: 18% (4% to 32% better) (three trials, 285 participants). In one trial (78 participants), 9/40 (or 225 per 1000) people perceived that treatment was successful in the placebo group compared with 12/38 (or 315 per 1000; 95% CI 150 to 664) in the vertebroplasty group, RR 1.40 (95% CI 0.67 to 2.95), absolute difference: 9% more reported success (11% fewer to 29% more); relative change: 40% more reported success (33% fewer to 195% more).Moderate-quality evidence (low number of events) from seven trials (four placebo, three usual care, 1020 participants), up to 24 months follow-up, indicates we are uncertain whether vertebroplasty increases the risk of new symptomatic vertebral fractures (70/509 (or 130 per 1000; range 60 to 247) observed in the vertebroplasty group compared with 59/511 (120 per 1000) in the control group; RR 1.08 (95% CI 0.62 to 1.87)).Similarly, moderate-quality evidence (low number of events) from five trials (three placebo, two usual care, 821 participants), indicates uncertainty around the risk of other serious adverse events (18/408 or 76 per 1000, range 6 to 156) in the vertebroplasty group compared with 26/413 (or 106 per 1000) in the control group; RR 0.64 (95% CI 0.36 to 1.12). Notably, serious adverse events reported with vertebroplasty included osteomyelitis, cord compression, thecal sac injury and respiratory failure.Our subgroup analyses indicate that the effects did not differ according to duration of pain ≤ 6 weeks versus > 6 weeks. Including data from the eight trials that compared vertebroplasty with usual care in a sensitivity analyses altered the primary results, with all combined analyses displaying considerable heterogeneity. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based upon high- to moderate-quality evidence, our updated review does not support a role for vertebroplasty for treating acute or subacute osteoporotic vertebral fractures in routine practice. We found no demonstrable clinically important benefits compared with placebo (sham procedure) and subgroup analyses indicated that the results did not differ according to duration of pain ≤ 6 weeks versus > 6 weeks.Sensitivity analyses confirmed that open trials comparing vertebroplasty with usual care are likely to have overestimated any benefit of vertebroplasty. Correcting for these biases would likely drive any benefits observed with vertebroplasty towards the null, in keeping with findings from the placebo-controlled trials.Numerous serious adverse events have been observed following vertebroplasty. However due to the small number of events, we cannot be certain about whether or not vertebroplasty results in a clinically important increased risk of new symptomatic vertebral fractures and/or other serious adverse events. Patients should be informed about both the high- to moderate-quality evidence that shows no important benefit of vertebroplasty and its potential for harm.

Interventions for helping people adhere to compression treatments for venous leg ulceration.

BACKGROUND: Chronic venous ulcer healing is a complex clinical problem that requires intervention from skilled, costly, multidisciplinary wound-care teams. Compression therapy has been shown to help heal venous ulcers and to reduce recurrence. It is not known which interventions help people adhere to compression treatments. This review is an update of a previous Cochrane review. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of interventions designed to help people adhere to venous leg ulcer compression therapy, to improve healing and prevent recurrence after healing. SEARCH METHODS: In June 2015, for this first update, we searched: The Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid EMBASE and EBSCO CINAHL. We also searched trial registries, and reference lists of relevant publications for published and ongoing trials. There were no language or publication date restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions that aim to help people with venous leg ulcers adhere to compression treatments compared with usual care, or no intervention, or another active intervention. Our main outcomes were ulcer healing, ulcer recurrence, quality of life, pain, adherence to compression therapy and number of people with adverse events. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data, assessed the risk of bias of each included trial, and assessed overall quality of evidence for the main outcomes in 'Summary of findings' tables. MAIN RESULTS: One randomised controlled trial was added to this update making a total of three. One ongoing study was also identified.One trial (67 participants) compared a community-based Leg Club® that provided mechanisms for peer-support, assistance with goal setting and social interaction with home-based care. There was no clear difference in healing rates at three months (12/28 people healed in Leg Club group versus 7/28 in home-based care group; risk ratio (RR) 1.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79 to 3.71); or six months (15/33 healed in Leg Club group versus 10/34 in home-based care group; RR 1.55, 95% CI 0.81 to 2.93); or in quality of life outcomes at six months (MD 0.85 points, 95% CI -0.13 to 1.83; 0 to 10 point scale). The Leg Club may lead to a small reduction in pain at six months, that may not be clinically significant (MD -12.75 points, 95% CI -24.79, -0.71; 0 to 100 point scale, 15 point reduction is usually considered the minimal clinically important difference) (low quality evidence downgraded for risk of selection bias and imprecision).Another trial (184 participants) compared a community-based, nurse-led self-management programme of six months' duration promoting physical activity (walking and leg exercises) and adherence to compression therapy via counselling and behaviour modification (Lively Legs®) with usual care in a wound clinic. At 18 months follow-up, there were no clear differences in healing rates (51/92 healed in Lively Legs group versus 41/92 in usual care group; RR 1.24 (95% CI 0.93 to 1.67)); rates of recurrence of venous leg ulcers (32/69 with recurrence in Lively Legs group versus 38/67 in usual care group; RR 0.82 (95% CI 0.59 to 1.14)); or adherence to compression therapy (42/92 people fully adherent in Lively Legs group versus 41/92 in usual care group; RR 1.02 (95% CI 0.74 to 1.41)). The evidence from this trial was also downgraded to low quality due to risk of selection bias and imprecision.A single study compared patient education delivered via video with education delivered by text (pamphlet). However, no outcomes relevant to this review were reported.We found no studies that investigated other interventions to promote adherence to compression therapy. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: It is unclear whether interventions designed to help people adhere to compression therapy improve venous ulcer healing and reduce recurrence. There is a lack of trials of interventions that promote adherence to compression therapy for venous ulcers.