Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Comparison 1 Aquatic exercise versus control after treatment ‐ knee&hip mixed, Outcome 1 Pain.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Aquatic exercise versus control after treatment ‐ knee&hip mixed, Outcome 1 Pain.

Comparison 1 Aquatic exercise versus control after treatment ‐ knee&hip mixed, Outcome 2 Function.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 Aquatic exercise versus control after treatment ‐ knee&hip mixed, Outcome 2 Function.

Comparison 1 Aquatic exercise versus control after treatment ‐ knee&hip mixed, Outcome 3 Walking ability.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 Aquatic exercise versus control after treatment ‐ knee&hip mixed, Outcome 3 Walking ability.

Comparison 1 Aquatic exercise versus control after treatment ‐ knee&hip mixed, Outcome 4 Stiffness.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1 Aquatic exercise versus control after treatment ‐ knee&hip mixed, Outcome 4 Stiffness.

Comparison 1 Aquatic exercise versus control after treatment ‐ knee&hip mixed, Outcome 5 Quality of life.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.5

Comparison 1 Aquatic exercise versus control after treatment ‐ knee&hip mixed, Outcome 5 Quality of life.

Comparison 1 Aquatic exercise versus control after treatment ‐ knee&hip mixed, Outcome 6 Mental health.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.6

Comparison 1 Aquatic exercise versus control after treatment ‐ knee&hip mixed, Outcome 6 Mental health.

Comparison 2 Aquatic exercise versus control after treatment ‐hip, Outcome 1 Function.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.1

Comparison 2 Aquatic exercise versus control after treatment ‐hip, Outcome 1 Function.

Comparison 2 Aquatic exercise versus control after treatment ‐hip, Outcome 2 Quality of life.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.2

Comparison 2 Aquatic exercise versus control after treatment ‐hip, Outcome 2 Quality of life.

Comparison 3 Aquatic exercise versus land after treatment ‐ knee, Outcome 1 Pain.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 3.1

Comparison 3 Aquatic exercise versus land after treatment ‐ knee, Outcome 1 Pain.

Comparison 3 Aquatic exercise versus land after treatment ‐ knee, Outcome 2 Walking ability.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 3.2

Comparison 3 Aquatic exercise versus land after treatment ‐ knee, Outcome 2 Walking ability.

Comparison 3 Aquatic exercise versus land after treatment ‐ knee, Outcome 3 Stiffness.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 3.3

Comparison 3 Aquatic exercise versus land after treatment ‐ knee, Outcome 3 Stiffness.

Comparison 4 Aquatic exercise versus control at follow up ‐ knee&hip mixed, Outcome 1 Pain.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 4.1

Comparison 4 Aquatic exercise versus control at follow up ‐ knee&hip mixed, Outcome 1 Pain.

Comparison 4 Aquatic exercise versus control at follow up ‐ knee&hip mixed, Outcome 2 Function.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 4.2

Comparison 4 Aquatic exercise versus control at follow up ‐ knee&hip mixed, Outcome 2 Function.

Comparison 4 Aquatic exercise versus control at follow up ‐ knee&hip mixed, Outcome 3 Stiffness.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 4.3

Comparison 4 Aquatic exercise versus control at follow up ‐ knee&hip mixed, Outcome 3 Stiffness.

Comparison 4 Aquatic exercise versus control at follow up ‐ knee&hip mixed, Outcome 4 Mental health.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 4.4

Comparison 4 Aquatic exercise versus control at follow up ‐ knee&hip mixed, Outcome 4 Mental health.

Comparison 5 Aquatic exercise versus control at follow up ‐ hip, Outcome 1 Pain.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 5.1

Comparison 5 Aquatic exercise versus control at follow up ‐ hip, Outcome 1 Pain.

Comparison 5 Aquatic exercise versus control at follow up ‐ hip, Outcome 2 Function.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 5.2

Comparison 5 Aquatic exercise versus control at follow up ‐ hip, Outcome 2 Function.

Comparison 5 Aquatic exercise versus control at follow up ‐ hip, Outcome 3 Quality of life.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 5.3

Comparison 5 Aquatic exercise versus control at follow up ‐ hip, Outcome 3 Quality of life.

Table 1. Clinical relevance table ‐ Knee and hip mixed OA

Study

Outcome (scale)

# patients (# trials

Ctl baseline mean,SD

Wt absolute change

Relative % change

Statistical Sig.

Quality of evidence

Cochrane (2005) ; Foley (2003)

WOMAC (Western Ontario McMaster Osteoarthritis Index) (pain) (0‐20)

380 (2)

9.10 (3.14)

3.0% (0.6 fewer points on a scale 0 to 20 scale)

6.6% (I)

statistically significant but not clinically significant

GOLD

Wang (2004)

VAS (Visual Analogue Scale) pain (0‐100)

43 (1)

55.3 (24.6)

12% (12.3 fewer points on a 0‐100 scale)

0.2% (I)

not significant

GOLD

Patrick (2001)

HAQ (Health Assessment Questionnaire) pain (0‐3)

249 (1)

1.05 (0.61)

2% (0.07 fewer points on a 0‐3 scale)

7% (I)

not significant

GOLD

Cochrane (2005); Foley (2003)

WOMAC function (0‐68)

380 (2)

31.05 (11.24)

4.3% (2.9 points on scale of 0 to 68)

9.4% (1)

statistically significant but not clinically significant

GOLD

Patrick (2001); Wang (2004)

HAQ function (0‐3)

292 (2)

0.95 (0.5)

5.2% (0.16 fewer points on a 0‐3 scale)

16.3% (I)

statistically significant

GOLD

Cochrane (2005)

WOMAC pain (0‐20)

310 (1)

9.10 (3.14)

0.3% (0.35 points fewer on a 0‐20 scale)

4% (I)

not significant

GOLD

Cochrane (2005)

WOMAC function (0‐68)

310 (1)

31.05 (11.24)

0.1% (0.11 fewer points on a 0‐68 scale)

0.4% (I)

not significant

GOLD

Legend: ctl=control group; SD=standard deviation; wt=weighted; I=improvement; sig=significance;

Figures and Tables -
Table 1. Clinical relevance table ‐ Knee and hip mixed OA
Table 2. Clinical relevance table ‐ Hip OA

Study

Outcome (scale)

#patients #(trials)

Ctl baseline mean,SD

Absolute change

Relative % change

Statistical sig.

Quality of evidence

Stener‐Victorin (2004)

VAS (Visual Analog Scale) pain (0‐100)

28 (1)

56.0 (21.89)

22% (21.9 fewer points on a 0‐100 scale)

40% (I)

not statistically significant

SILVER

Legend: ctl=control group, SD=standard deviation, sig=significance, I=improvement

Figures and Tables -
Table 2. Clinical relevance table ‐ Hip OA
Table 3. Clinical relevance table ‐ Knee OA

Study

Outcome (scale)

#patients (# trials)

Ctl baseline mean,SD

Absolute change

Relative % change

Statisitical sig.

Quality of evidence

Wyatt (2001)

VAS (Visual Analog Scale) pain (0‐10)

46 (1)

5.6 (1.4)

12% (1.2 fewer points on a 0‐10 scale)

22% (I)

statistically significant

SILVER

Legend: ctl=control group; sig=significance; I=improvement

Figures and Tables -
Table 3. Clinical relevance table ‐ Knee OA
Comparison 1. Aquatic exercise versus control after treatment ‐ knee&hip mixed

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Pain Show forest plot

4

638

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.19 [0.04, 0.35]

1.1 WOMAC pain

2

380

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.20 [‐0.00, 0.40]

1.2 Visual Analogue Pain

1

43

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.50 [‐0.10, 1.11]

1.3 HAQ pain

1

215

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.12 [‐0.15, 0.39]

2 Function Show forest plot

4

648

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.26 [0.11, 0.42]

2.1 WOMAC function

2

375

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.23 [0.03, 0.44]

2.2 HAQ function

2

273

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.31 [0.07, 0.55]

3 Walking ability Show forest plot

2

355

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.18 [‐0.03, 0.39]

3.1 Six‐minute walk

1

43

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.03 [‐0.63, 0.57]

3.2 8‐foot walk time

1

312

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.21 [‐0.01, 0.43]

4 Stiffness Show forest plot

2

380

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.14 [‐0.06, 0.34]

4.1 WOMAC stiffness

2

380

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.14 [‐0.06, 0.34]

5 Quality of life Show forest plot

3

599

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.32 [0.03, 0.61]

5.1 SF‐12 physical

1

70

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.69 [0.21, 1.17]

5.2 PQOL ‐ perceived quality of life

1

222

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.35 [0.09, 0.62]

5.3 EURO‐QOL

1

307

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.10 [‐0.12, 0.33]

6 Mental health Show forest plot

4

642

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.16 [0.01, 0.32]

6.1 SF‐36 mental

1

307

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.15 [‐0.08, 0.37]

6.2 SF‐12 mental

1

70

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.19 [‐0.28, 0.66]

6.3 Psychological Distress

1

43

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.37 [‐0.24, 0.97]

6.4 QWB ‐ quality of well being

1

222

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.13 [‐0.13, 0.40]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 1. Aquatic exercise versus control after treatment ‐ knee&hip mixed
Comparison 2. Aquatic exercise versus control after treatment ‐hip

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Function Show forest plot

1

28

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.76 [‐0.02, 1.53]

1.1 DRI‐disability rating index

1

28

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.76 [‐0.02, 1.53]

2 Quality of life Show forest plot

1

28

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.76 [‐0.02, 1.53]

2.1 GSI ‐ global self rating index

1

28

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.76 [‐0.02, 1.53]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 2. Aquatic exercise versus control after treatment ‐hip
Comparison 3. Aquatic exercise versus land after treatment ‐ knee

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Pain Show forest plot

1

46

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.86 [0.25, 1.47]

1.1 VAS pain

1

46

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.86 [0.25, 1.47]

2 Walking ability Show forest plot

1

46

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.43 [‐0.16, 1.01]

2.1 1 MILE walk time

1

46

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.43 [‐0.16, 1.01]

3 Stiffness Show forest plot

1

46

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.26 [‐0.84, 0.32]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 3. Aquatic exercise versus land after treatment ‐ knee
Comparison 4. Aquatic exercise versus control at follow up ‐ knee&hip mixed

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Pain Show forest plot

1

310

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.11 [‐0.12, 0.33]

1.1 WOMAC pain

1

310

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.11 [‐0.12, 0.33]

2 Function Show forest plot

1

306

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.10 [‐0.12, 0.33]

2.1 WOMAC function

1

306

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.10 [‐0.12, 0.33]

3 Stiffness Show forest plot

1

310

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.13 [‐0.09, 0.36]

3.1 WOMAC stiffness

1

310

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.13 [‐0.09, 0.36]

4 Mental health Show forest plot

1

309

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.05 [‐0.17, 0.27]

4.1 SF‐36 mental

1

309

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.05 [‐0.17, 0.27]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 4. Aquatic exercise versus control at follow up ‐ knee&hip mixed
Comparison 5. Aquatic exercise versus control at follow up ‐ hip

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Pain Show forest plot

1

17

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

1.00 [‐0.04, 2.04]

1.1 VAS pain

1

17

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

1.00 [‐0.04, 2.04]

2 Function Show forest plot

1

17

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

1.00 [‐0.04, 2.04]

2.1 DRI‐disability rating index

1

17

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

1.00 [‐0.04, 2.04]

3 Quality of life Show forest plot

1

17

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

1.00 [‐0.04, 2.04]

3.1 GSI ‐ global self rating index

1

17

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

1.00 [‐0.04, 2.04]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 5. Aquatic exercise versus control at follow up ‐ hip