Knee Confidence, Fear of Movement, and Psychological Readiness for Sport in Individuals With Knee Conditions: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To (1) compare activity-related psychological factors between individuals with and without knee conditions, and (2) assess associations between these factors and objective measures of function in individuals with knee conditions. DESIGN: A priori registered systematic review with meta-analysis. LITERATURE SEARCH: MEDLINE-Ovid, Embase-Ovid, Scopus-Elsevier, CINAHL-EBSCO, SPORTDiscus-EBSCO, and Cochrane Library were searched to May 27, 2022. STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA: We included peer-reviewed primary data studies (observational and experimental) of human participants with and without knee conditions reporting knee confidence, fear of movement/avoidance beliefs, and/or psychological readiness to return to sport (RTS) or reporting correlations between these factors and objective measures of function in knee conditions. DATA SYNTHESIS: Where possible, data were pooled by knee conditions, otherwise performed narrative syntheses. The Downs and Black checklist assessed the methodological quality of the included studies. RESULTS: Forty studies (3546 participants with knee conditions; 616 participants without knee conditions) were included. There was very low-certainty evidence of higher fear of movement in individuals with knee osteoarthritis (standardized mean difference [SMD], 0.46; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.41, 0.52), but not in individuals with patellofemoral pain (SMD, 0.66; 95% CI: -7.98, 9.29) when compared with those without knee conditions. There was very low-certainty evidence of no differences in psychological readiness to RTS after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (SMD, -1.14; 95% CI: -2.97, 0.70) compared to no knee condition, and negligible to weak positive correlations between psychological readiness to RTS and objective measures of function. CONCLUSION: There was very low-certainty evidence of higher fear of movement in individuals with knee osteoarthritis compared to those without, and very low-certainty evidence of no correlations between these factors and objective measures of function following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2024;54(4):1-14. Epub 29 January 2024. doi:10.2519/jospt.2024.12070.

May the force be with you: understanding how patellofemoral joint reaction force compares across different activities and physical interventions-a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review and synthesise patellofemoral joint reaction force (PFJRF) in healthy individuals and those with patellofemoral pain and osteoarthritis (OA), during everyday activities, therapeutic exercises and with physical interventions (eg, foot orthotics, footwear, taping, bracing). DESIGN: A systematic review with meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, Scopus, CINAHL, SportDiscus and Cochrane Library databases were searched. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Observational and interventional studies reporting PFJRF during everyday activities, therapeutic exercises, and physical interventions. RESULTS: In healthy individuals, the weighted average of mean (±SD) peak PFJRF for everyday activities were: walking 0.9±0.4 body weight (BW), stair ascent 3.2±0.7 BW, stair descent 2.8±0.5 BW and running 5.2±1.2 BW. In those with patellofemoral pain, peak PFJRF were: walking 0.8±0.2 BW, stair ascent 2.5±0.5 BW, stair descent 2.6±0.5 BW, running 4.1±0.9 BW. Only single studies reported peak PFJRF during everyday activities in individuals with patellofemoral OA/articular cartilage defects (walking 1.3±0.5 BW, stair ascent 1.6±0.4 BW, stair descent 1.0±0.5 BW). The PFJRF was reported for many different exercises and physical interventions; however, considerable variability precluded any pooled estimates. SUMMARY: Everyday activities and exercises involving larger knee flexion (eg, squatting) expose the patellofemoral joint to higher PFJRF than those involving smaller knee flexion (eg, walking). There were no discernable differences in peak PFJRF during everyday activities between healthy individuals and those with patellofemoral pain/OA. The information on PFJRF may be used to select appropriate variations of exercises and physical interventions.

Inconsistencies in the Methodological Framework Throughout Published Studies in High-Impact Orthopaedic Journals: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Both the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) and Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines recommend that clinical trials follow a study framework that aligns with their objective to test the relative efficacy or safety (equality) or effectiveness (superiority, noninferiority, or equivalence) between interventions. We conducted a systematic review to assess the proportion of studies that demonstrated inconsistency between the framing of their research question, sample size calculation, and conclusion and those that should have framed their research question differently based on the compared interventions. METHODS: We included studies from 5 high-impact-factor orthopaedic journals published in 2017 and 2019 that compared at least 2 interventions using patient-reported outcome measures. RESULTS: We included 228 studies. The sample size calculation was reported in 60.5% (n = 138) of studies. Of these, 52.2% (n = 72) were inconsistent between the framing of their research question, sample size calculation, and conclusion. The majority (n = 137) of sample size calculations were for equality, but 43.8% of these studies concluded superiority, noninferiority, or equivalence. Studies that framed their research question as equality (n = 186) should have been framed as superiority (n = 129), equivalence (n = 52), or noninferiority (n = 3). Only 2 studies correctly framed their research question as equality. CONCLUSIONS: Studies published in high-impact journals were inconsistent between the framing of their research question, sample size calculation, and conclusion. Authors may be misinterpreting research findings and making clinical recommendations solely based on p values. Researchers are encouraged to state and justify their methodological framework and choice of margin(s) in a publicly published protocol as they have implications for sample size and the applicability of conclusions. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The results of clinical research must be interpreted using confidence intervals, with careful consideration as to how the confidence intervals relate to clinically meaningful differences in outcomes between treatments. The more typical practice of relying on p values leaves the clinician at high risk of erroneous interpretation, recommendation, and/or action.

The Influence of Running on Lower Limb Cartilage: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Running is a popular activity practiced worldwide. It is important to understand how running affects joint health to provide recommendations to sports medicine practitioners and runners. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to summarize the influence of running on lower limb cartilage morphology and composition using quantitative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). METHODS: Prospective repeated-measures studies evaluating cartilage using MRI before and after running were included. Data sources included Pubmed, Embase, CINAHL, SportDiscus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials. Qualitative analyses considered the number and methodological quality ratings of studies based on the QualSyst tool, and recommendations were based on the strength of evidence (strong, moderate, limited, or very limited). Quantitative analysis involved meta-analyses, for which effect sizes were calculated as Hedge's g standardized mean differences. RESULTS: We included 43 articles, assessing seven outcomes (lesions, volume, thickness, glycosaminoglycan content, and T1ρ, T2, and T2* relaxation times). Nineteen articles were rated as high quality, 24 were rated as moderate quality, and none were rated as low quality. Qualitative analyses suggest that running may cause an immediate reduction in knee cartilage volume, thickness, as well as T1ρ and T2 relaxation times immediately; however, these changes did not persist. Meta-analyses revealed a small and moderate decrease immediately following a single running bout in T2 relaxation time in the medial femur and tibia, respectively. Qualitative analyses indicated that the influence of repeated exposure to running on cartilage morphology and composition was limited. Despite conflicting evidence regarding pre-existing knee cartilage lesions, moderate evidence suggests that running does not lead to the formation of new lesions. Repeated running exposure did not cause changes to foot and ankle cartilage thickness or composition. CONCLUSIONS: Changes to lower limb cartilage following running are transient. Immediate changes to cartilage morphology and composition, which likely reflect natural fluid dynamics, do not persist and were generally not significant when pooled statistically. Results suggest that cartilage recovers well from a single running bout and adapts to repeated exposure. Given that moderate evidence indicates that running does not lead to new lesions, future trials should focus on clinical populations, such as those with osteoarthritis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable.

Interpreting Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Orthopaedic Surgery: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Statement recommends that studies report results beyond p values and include treatment effect(s) and measures of precision (e.g., confidence intervals [CIs]) to facilitate the interpretation of results. The objective of this systematic review was to assess the reporting and interpretation of patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) results in clinical studies from high-impact orthopaedic journals, to determine the proportion of studies that (1) only reported a p value; (2) reported a treatment effect, CI, or minimal clinically important difference (MCID); and (3) offered an interpretation of the results beyond interpreting a p value. METHODS: We included studies from 5 high-impact-factor orthopaedic journals published in 2017 and 2019 that compared at least 2 intervention groups using PROMs. RESULTS: A total of 228 studies were analyzed, including 126 randomized controlled trials, 35 prospective cohort studies, 61 retrospective cohort studies, 1 mixed cohort study, and 5 case-control studies. Seventy-six percent of studies (174) reported p values exclusively to express and interpret between-group differences, and only 22.4% (51) reported a treatment effect (mean difference, mean change, or odds ratio) with 95% CI. Of the 54 studies reporting a treatment effect, 31 interpreted the results using an important threshold (MCID, margin, or Cohen d), but only 3 interpreted the CIs. We found an absolute improvement of 35.5% (95% CI, 20.8% to 48.4%) in the reporting of the MCID between 2017 and 2019. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of interventional studies reporting PROMs do not report CIs around between-group differences in outcome and do not define a clinically meaningful difference. A p value cannot effectively communicate the readiness for implementation in a clinical setting and may be misleading. Thus, reporting requirements should be expanded to require authors to define and provide a rationale for between-group clinically important difference thresholds, and study findings should be communicated by comparing CIs with these thresholds.

Are we missing the target? Are we aiming too low? What are the aerobic exercise prescriptions and their effects on markers of cardiovascular health and systemic inflammation in patients with knee osteoarthritis? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: We systemically reviewed published studies that evaluated aerobic exercise interventions in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA) to: (1) report the frequency, intensity, type and time (FITT) of exercise prescriptions and (2) quantify the changes in markers of cardiovascular health and systemic inflammation. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus; inception to January 2019. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomised clinical trials (RCT), cohort studies, case series. DESIGN: We summarised exercise prescriptions for all studies and calculated effect sizes with 95% CIs for between-group (RCTs that compared exercise and control groups) and within-group (pre-post exercise) differences in aerobic capacity (VO2), heart rate (HR), systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and inflammatory markers (interleukin-6 (IL-6), tumour necrosis factor-alpha). We pooled results where possible using random effects models. RESULTS: Interventions from 49 studies were summarised; 8% (4/49) met all FITT guidelines; 16% (8/49) met all or most FITT guidelines. Fourteen studies (10 RCTs) reported at least one marker of cardiovascular health or systemic inflammation. Mean differences (95% CI) indicated a small to moderate increase in VO2 (0.84 mL/min/kg; 95% CI 0.37 to 1.31), decrease in HR (-3.56 beats per minute; 95% CI -5.60 to -1.52) and DBP (-4.10 mm Hg; 95% CI -4.82 to -3.38) and no change in SBP (-0.36 mm Hg; 95% CI -3.88 to 3.16) and IL-6 (0.37 pg/mL; 95% CI -0.11 to 0.85). Within-group differences were also small to moderate. CONCLUSIONS: In studies of aerobic exercise in patients with knee OA, very few interventions met guideline-recommended dose; there were small to moderate changes in markers of cardiovascular health and no decrease in markers of systemic inflammation. These findings question whether aerobic exercise is being used to its full potential in patients with knee OA. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018087859.