IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0324864.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Clinical efficacy of different therapeutic options for knee osteoarthritis: A network meta-analysis based on randomized clinical trials

Author

Listed:
  • Xiao Chen
  • Yuanhe Fan
  • Hongliang Tu
  • Yuan Luo

Abstract

Objective: To assess and compare the clinical efficacy of various therapeutic options in treating patients with knee osteoarthritis (KOA). Methods: We performed a comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, OVID, Cochrane Library and Web of Science databases from their inception to December 10th, 2023, identifying randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining the effects of therapeutic options on KOA. Two researchers independently performed literature screening, data extraction, data collection and organization, and quality assessment. The data obtained were subjected to statistical analysis and graphical representation using Stata 17.0 software. Results: A total of 139 RCTs encompassing 9644 KOA patients and involving 12 therapeutic options were included. These interventions were low level laser therapy (LLLT), high intensity laser therapy (HILT), transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), interferential current (IFC), short wave diathermy, ultrasound, lateral wedged insole, knee brace, exercise, hydrotherapy, kinesio taping (KT) and extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT). Regarding the WOMAC pain score, knee brace was determined to be the most likely to yield the best results, followed by exercise and HILT, ultrasound was worst intervention. In terms of WOMAC function score, knee brace emerged as the technique with the highest likelihood of being optimal, followed in sequence by hydrotherapy and ESWT, ultrasound was worst intervention. Knee brace ranked highest in effectiveness concerning the WOMAC stiffness score, followed by exercise and hydrotherapy. For the total WOMAC score, hydrotherapy demonstrated the highest probability of being the best technique, followed by exercise and HILT, short wave diathermy was worst intervention. In addressing VAS-rest, hydrotherapy exhibited the greatest likelihood of being the optimum technique, followed by HILT and LLLT. In terms of VAS-activity, knee brace had the highest probability of being the best technique, followed by LLLT and exercise, ultrasound was worst intervention. Overall, based on the results obtained from the SUCRA for all outcomes, knee brace had the highest probability of being the best technique, followed by hydrotherapy and exercise. Conclusion: The findings suggest that knee brace may be the most recommended therapeutic option for the knee osteoarthritis, followed by hydrotherapy and exercise.

Suggested Citation

  • Xiao Chen & Yuanhe Fan & Hongliang Tu & Yuan Luo, 2025. "Clinical efficacy of different therapeutic options for knee osteoarthritis: A network meta-analysis based on randomized clinical trials," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 20(6), pages 1-28, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0324864
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0324864
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0324864
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0324864&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0324864?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0324864. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.