Intraarticular corticosteroid for treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee

Nicholas Bellamy; Jane Campbell; Vivian Welch; Travis L Gee; Robert Bourne; George A Wells

doi:10.1002/14651858.CD005328.pub2

Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Contenido relacionado

Ir a:

Revisiones y protocolos relacionados
Guías
Temas

Revisiones y protocolos relacionados

Topics

Temas

Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Corticosteroid versus placebo, Outcome 1 Pain: number of patients reporting pain reduction.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 Corticosteroid versus placebo, Outcome 2 Number of knees reported with improvement 2 weeks post injection.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 Corticosteroid versus placebo, Outcome 3 Number of knees reported with improvement 2 weeks post injection.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1 Corticosteroid versus placebo, Outcome 4 Pain: 0‐100 mm VAS.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.5

Comparison 1 Corticosteroid versus placebo, Outcome 5 Number of responders (greater than 30% decrease in pain VAS from baseline).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.6

Comparison 1 Corticosteroid versus placebo, Outcome 6 Number of responders (greater than 15% decrease in pain VAS) 3 weeks post injection.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.7

Comparison 1 Corticosteroid versus placebo, Outcome 7 Pain: WOMAC pain (0‐100 mm VAS).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.8

Comparison 1 Corticosteroid versus placebo, Outcome 8 Pain: at night (0‐100 mm VAS).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.9

Comparison 1 Corticosteroid versus placebo, Outcome 9 Function: WOMAC physical function (0‐100 mm VAS).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.10

Comparison 1 Corticosteroid versus placebo, Outcome 10 Function: Lequesne Index (0‐24).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.11

Comparison 1 Corticosteroid versus placebo, Outcome 11 Function: Modified HAQ (0‐9).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.12

Comparison 1 Corticosteroid versus placebo, Outcome 12 Function: 50 foot walking time (sec).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.13

Comparison 1 Corticosteroid versus placebo, Outcome 13 Function: walking distance (m).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.14

Comparison 1 Corticosteroid versus placebo, Outcome 14 Range of motion (degrees).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.15

Comparison 1 Corticosteroid versus placebo, Outcome 15 Global assessment: number of patients showing improvement.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.16

Comparison 1 Corticosteroid versus placebo, Outcome 16 Global assessment: number of patients preferring treatment.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.17

Comparison 1 Corticosteroid versus placebo, Outcome 17 Patient global assessment (0‐100 mm VAS).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.18

Comparison 1 Corticosteroid versus placebo, Outcome 18 WOMAC stiffness (0‐100 mm VAS).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.19

Comparison 1 Corticosteroid versus placebo, Outcome 19 WOMAC total (0‐100 mm VAS).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.20

Comparison 1 Corticosteroid versus placebo, Outcome 20 Joint space width (mm).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.21

Comparison 1 Corticosteroid versus placebo, Outcome 21 Safety: total withdrawals overall.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.22

Comparison 1 Corticosteroid versus placebo, Outcome 22 Safety: withdrawals due to lack of efficacy.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.24

Comparison 1 Corticosteroid versus placebo, Outcome 24 Safety: number of patients experiencing post injection flare.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.25

Comparison 1 Corticosteroid versus placebo, Outcome 25 Safety: number of patients reporting local discomfort.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 2.1

Comparison 2 Corticosteroid verus joint lavage, Outcome 1 Pain: number of responders (greater than 30% reduction in pain VAS from baseline).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 2.2

Comparison 2 Corticosteroid verus joint lavage, Outcome 2 Pain (0‐100 mm VAS).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 2.3

Comparison 2 Corticosteroid verus joint lavage, Outcome 3 Pain on movement: number of responders (at least 30% reduction).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 2.4

Comparison 2 Corticosteroid verus joint lavage, Outcome 4 Pain (0‐10 cm VAS).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 2.5

Comparison 2 Corticosteroid verus joint lavage, Outcome 5 Pain: number of knees with spontaneous pain.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 2.6

Comparison 2 Corticosteroid verus joint lavage, Outcome 6 Pain: number of knees with pain on active motion.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 2.7

Comparison 2 Corticosteroid verus joint lavage, Outcome 7 Pain: number of knees with pain on passive motion.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 2.8

Comparison 2 Corticosteroid verus joint lavage, Outcome 8 Pain: number of knees with pain on pressue.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 2.9

Comparison 2 Corticosteroid verus joint lavage, Outcome 9 Function: number of knees with restricted motion.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 2.10

Comparison 2 Corticosteroid verus joint lavage, Outcome 10 Function: Lequesne Index (0‐24).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 2.11

Comparison 2 Corticosteroid verus joint lavage, Outcome 11 OARSI responsder criteria (20% decrease in pain VAS and >10 mm and/or improved function >20% and 10 units).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 2.12

Comparison 2 Corticosteroid verus joint lavage, Outcome 12 Crepitation: number of knees with symptom.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 2.13

Comparison 2 Corticosteroid verus joint lavage, Outcome 13 Global assessment (0‐100 mm VAS).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 2.14

Comparison 2 Corticosteroid verus joint lavage, Outcome 14 Effusion: number of knees with effusion.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 2.15

Comparison 2 Corticosteroid verus joint lavage, Outcome 15 Effusion: number of patients with effusion.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 2.16

Comparison 2 Corticosteroid verus joint lavage, Outcome 16 Safety: total withdrawals overall.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 2.17

Comparison 2 Corticosteroid verus joint lavage, Outcome 17 Safety: withdrawals due to lack of efficacy.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 2.18

Comparison 2 Corticosteroid verus joint lavage, Outcome 18 Safety: number of patients reporting local discomfort.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 3.1

Comparison 3 Methylprednisolone acetate versus Hyalgan, Outcome 1 Spontaneous pain intensity (0‐100 mm VAS).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 3.2

Comparison 3 Methylprednisolone acetate versus Hyalgan, Outcome 2 Number of joints with moderate or severe pain under load.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 3.3

Comparison 3 Methylprednisolone acetate versus Hyalgan, Outcome 3 Number of patients with moderate or severe pain under load.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 3.4

Comparison 3 Methylprednisolone acetate versus Hyalgan, Outcome 4 Number of joints with moderate or severe walking pain.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 3.5

Comparison 3 Methylprednisolone acetate versus Hyalgan, Outcome 5 Number of patients with at least moderate or greater night pain.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 3.6

Comparison 3 Methylprednisolone acetate versus Hyalgan, Outcome 6 Number of patients with moderate or greater rest pain.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 3.7

Comparison 3 Methylprednisolone acetate versus Hyalgan, Outcome 7 Function: range of motion (flexion in degrees).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 3.8

Comparison 3 Methylprednisolone acetate versus Hyalgan, Outcome 8 Patient global (number of patients very good/good, excellent/good).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 3.9

Comparison 3 Methylprednisolone acetate versus Hyalgan, Outcome 9 Safety: total withdrawals overall.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 3.10

Comparison 3 Methylprednisolone acetate versus Hyalgan, Outcome 10 Safety: withdrawals due to lack of efficacy.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 3.11

Comparison 3 Methylprednisolone acetate versus Hyalgan, Outcome 11 Safety: withdrawals due to adverse events.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 3.12

Comparison 3 Methylprednisolone acetate versus Hyalgan, Outcome 12 Safety: number of patients with local or systemic reactions.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 3.13

Comparison 3 Methylprednisolone acetate versus Hyalgan, Outcome 13 Safety: number of joints with local reactions but continued in trial.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 4.1

Comparison 4 Triamcinolone hexacetonide versus Hyalgan, Outcome 1 Pain on nominated activity (0‐100 mm VAS).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 4.2

Comparison 4 Triamcinolone hexacetonide versus Hyalgan, Outcome 2 Pain at rest (0‐100 mm VAS).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 4.3

Comparison 4 Triamcinolone hexacetonide versus Hyalgan, Outcome 3 Pain at night (0‐100 mm VAS).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 4.4

Comparison 4 Triamcinolone hexacetonide versus Hyalgan, Outcome 4 Safety: total withdrawals overall.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 4.5

Comparison 4 Triamcinolone hexacetonide versus Hyalgan, Outcome 5 Safety: withdrawals due to lack of efficacy.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 4.6

Comparison 4 Triamcinolone hexacetonide versus Hyalgan, Outcome 6 Safety: wIthdrawals due to adverse events.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 5.1

Comparison 5 Betamethasone versus hylan G‐F 20, Outcome 1 Safety: total withdrawals overall.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 5.2

Comparison 5 Betamethasone versus hylan G‐F 20, Outcome 2 Safety: withdrawals due to lack of efficacy.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 5.3

Comparison 5 Betamethasone versus hylan G‐F 20, Outcome 3 Safety: withdrawals due to acute local reaction.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 6.1

Comparison 6 Triamcinolone hexacetonide versus hylan G‐F 20, Outcome 1 WOMAC pain walking on a flat surface (question 1: 0‐4 Likert).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 6.2

Comparison 6 Triamcinolone hexacetonide versus hylan G‐F 20, Outcome 2 WOMAC physical function subscale (0‐68 Likert).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 6.3

Comparison 6 Triamcinolone hexacetonide versus hylan G‐F 20, Outcome 3 WOMAC total score (0‐96 Likert).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 6.4

Comparison 6 Triamcinolone hexacetonide versus hylan G‐F 20, Outcome 4 Patient global overall assessment (0‐100 mm VAS).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 6.5

Comparison 6 Triamcinolone hexacetonide versus hylan G‐F 20, Outcome 5 Number of responders (greater than or equal to one category on WOMAC pain question 1).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 6.6

Comparison 6 Triamcinolone hexacetonide versus hylan G‐F 20, Outcome 6 Analgesic usage.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 6.7

Comparison 6 Triamcinolone hexacetonide versus hylan G‐F 20, Outcome 7 Safety: total withdrawals overall.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 6.8

Comparison 6 Triamcinolone hexacetonide versus hylan G‐F 20, Outcome 8 Safety: wIthdrawals due to adverse event.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 6.9

Comparison 6 Triamcinolone hexacetonide versus hylan G‐F 20, Outcome 9 Safety: withdrawals due to lack of efficacy.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 7.1

Comparison 7 Betamethasone versus Orthovisc, Outcome 1 WOMAC function (17‐85 Likert).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 7.2

Comparison 7 Betamethasone versus Orthovisc, Outcome 2 Flexion (degrees).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 7.3

Comparison 7 Betamethasone versus Orthovisc, Outcome 3 Patient global assessment: number of patients good or very good.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 7.4

Comparison 7 Betamethasone versus Orthovisc, Outcome 4 Safety: total withdrawals overall.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 7.5

Comparison 7 Betamethasone versus Orthovisc, Outcome 5 Safety: withdrawals due to adverse events.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 7.6

Comparison 7 Betamethasone versus Orthovisc, Outcome 6 Safety: number of patients with local adverse events.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 7.7

Comparison 7 Betamethasone versus Orthovisc, Outcome 7 Safety: number of patients with systemic adverse events.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 8.1

Comparison 8 6‐Methylprednisolone acetate versus Orthovisc, Outcome 1 Pain on weight bearing (0‐100 mm VAS).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 8.2

Comparison 8 6‐Methylprednisolone acetate versus Orthovisc, Outcome 2 Pain at rest (0‐100 mm VAS).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 8.3

Comparison 8 6‐Methylprednisolone acetate versus Orthovisc, Outcome 3 Pain on walking (0‐100 mm VAS).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 8.4

Comparison 8 6‐Methylprednisolone acetate versus Orthovisc, Outcome 4 Lequesne Index (0‐24).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 8.5

Comparison 8 6‐Methylprednisolone acetate versus Orthovisc, Outcome 5 Flexion (active range in degrees).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 8.6

Comparison 8 6‐Methylprednisolone acetate versus Orthovisc, Outcome 6 Safety: total withdrawals overall.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 8.7

Comparison 8 6‐Methylprednisolone acetate versus Orthovisc, Outcome 7 Safety: number of patients withdrawn due to increased pain.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 8.8

Comparison 8 6‐Methylprednisolone acetate versus Orthovisc, Outcome 8 Safety: number of patients reporting musculoskeletal adverse events.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 8.9

Comparison 8 6‐Methylprednisolone acetate versus Orthovisc, Outcome 9 Safety: number of patients reporting skin adverse events.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 8.10

Comparison 8 6‐Methylprednisolone acetate versus Orthovisc, Outcome 10 Safety: number of patients reporting gastrointestinal adverse events.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 8.11

Comparison 8 6‐Methylprednisolone acetate versus Orthovisc, Outcome 11 Safety: number of patients reporting general adverse events.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 8.12

Comparison 8 6‐Methylprednisolone acetate versus Orthovisc, Outcome 12 Safety: number of patients reporting knee pain after injection.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 9.1

Comparison 9 Triamcinolone acetonide plus Orthovisc versus Orthovisc, Outcome 1 Pain (0‐100 mm VAS).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 9.2

Comparison 9 Triamcinolone acetonide plus Orthovisc versus Orthovisc, Outcome 2 WOMAC pain (0‐20 Likert).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 9.3

Comparison 9 Triamcinolone acetonide plus Orthovisc versus Orthovisc, Outcome 3 WOMAC physical function (0‐68 Likert).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 9.4

Comparison 9 Triamcinolone acetonide plus Orthovisc versus Orthovisc, Outcome 4 50 foot walking time (seconds).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 9.5

Comparison 9 Triamcinolone acetonide plus Orthovisc versus Orthovisc, Outcome 5 Range of motion (degrees).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 9.6

Comparison 9 Triamcinolone acetonide plus Orthovisc versus Orthovisc, Outcome 6 WOMAC stiffness (0‐8 Likert).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 9.7

Comparison 9 Triamcinolone acetonide plus Orthovisc versus Orthovisc, Outcome 7 WOMAC total score (0‐96 Likert).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 9.8

Comparison 9 Triamcinolone acetonide plus Orthovisc versus Orthovisc, Outcome 8 Safety: total withdrawals overall.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 9.9

Comparison 9 Triamcinolone acetonide plus Orthovisc versus Orthovisc, Outcome 9 Safety: withdrawals due to lack of efficacy.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 9.10

Comparison 9 Triamcinolone acetonide plus Orthovisc versus Orthovisc, Outcome 10 Safety: number of patients reporting adverse events (local reactions).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 10.1

Comparison 10 Corticosteroid versus corticosteroid, Outcome 1 Pain: number of patients reporting pain reduction.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 10.2

Comparison 10 Corticosteroid versus corticosteroid, Outcome 2 Pain: number of knees reported with improvement 2 weeks post injection.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 10.3

Comparison 10 Corticosteroid versus corticosteroid, Outcome 3 Pain: during movement (0‐3).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 10.4

Comparison 10 Corticosteroid versus corticosteroid, Outcome 4 Pain: at rest (0‐3).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 10.5

Comparison 10 Corticosteroid versus corticosteroid, Outcome 5 Pain: on pressure (0‐3).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 10.6

Comparison 10 Corticosteroid versus corticosteroid, Outcome 6 Pain (0‐100 mm VAS).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 10.7

Comparison 10 Corticosteroid versus corticosteroid, Outcome 7 Lequesne Index.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 10.8

Comparison 10 Corticosteroid versus corticosteroid, Outcome 8 Function: range of motion (flexion 4 weeks post injection).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 10.9

Comparison 10 Corticosteroid versus corticosteroid, Outcome 9 Stair climb time (seconds).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 10.10

Comparison 10 Corticosteroid versus corticosteroid, Outcome 10 Index of disease activity (0‐10).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 10.11

Comparison 10 Corticosteroid versus corticosteroid, Outcome 11 Global assessment: number of patients showing improvement 1 week post injection.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 10.12

Comparison 10 Corticosteroid versus corticosteroid, Outcome 12 Global assessment: number of patients improved 1 week post injection.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 10.13

Comparison 10 Corticosteroid versus corticosteroid, Outcome 13 Global assessment: number of patients reporting improvement from baseline.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 10.14

Comparison 10 Corticosteroid versus corticosteroid, Outcome 14 Global assessment: number of knees excellent or good as assessed by physician at 20 weeks post injection.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 10.15

Comparison 10 Corticosteroid versus corticosteroid, Outcome 15 Safety: number of patients reporting local pain after injection (triamcinolone hexacetonide versus betamethaso.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 10.16

Comparison 10 Corticosteroid versus corticosteroid, Outcome 16 Safety: number of patients reporting local pain after injection (hydrocortisone acetate vs hydrocortisone TBA).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 10.17

Comparison 10 Corticosteroid versus corticosteroid, Outcome 17 Safety: number of adverse events recorded.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Table 1. Clinical benefit: Corticosteroid versus placebo ‐ pain (dichotomous)

Study	Time	Treatment	Outcome	No. improved	No. of pts.	Risk (% occurrence)	Risk difference	NNT
Friedman 1980	1 wk	T: Triamcinolone hexacetonide	Numeber of patients reporting pain reduction	15	17	88%	17%	No significant difference
		C: Vehicle		12	17	71%
Friedman 1980	8 wk	T: Triamcinolone hexacetonide	Number of patients reporting pain reduction	11	17	65%	0%	No significant difference
		C: Vehicle		11	17	65%
Jones 1996	3 wk	T: Methylprednisolone	% responders (greater than 15% decrease in VAS pain)	28	59	47%	32%	3.1
		C: Saline		9	59	15%
Ravaud 1999	1 wk	T: Cortivazol	% responders (greater than 30% decrease in VAS pain)	16	25	64%	39%	2.6
		C: Saline		7	28	25%
Ravaud 1999	4 wk	T: Cortivazol	% responders (greater than 30% decrease in VAS pain)	14	25	56%	27%	No significant difference
		C: Saline		8	28	29%
Ravaud 1999	12 wk	T: Cortivazol	% responders (greater than 30% decrease in VAS pain)	13	25	52%	23%	No significant difference
		C: Saline		8	28	29%
Ravaud 1999	24 wk	T: Cortivazol	% responders (greater than 30% decrease in VAS pain)	12	25	48%	26%	No significant difference
		C: Saline		6	28	22%

Table 1. Clinical benefit: Corticosteroid versus placebo ‐ pain (dichotomous)

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Table 2. Clinical benefit: Corticosteroid versus placebo ‐ patient global assessment

Study(ies)	Time	Treatment	Outcome	No. improved	No. of pts.	Risk (% occurrence)	Risk Difference	NNT
Cederlof 1966, Gaffney 1995, Popov 1989	1 wk	T: IA corticosteroid	Number of patients showing improvement	62	80	78%	23%	4.35*
		C: IA placebo		42	78	54%
Dieppe 1980a, Dieppe 1980b, Jones 1996	6 wk	T: IA corticosteroid	Number of patients preferring treatment	60	95	63%	35%	2.86*
		C: IA placebo		27	95	28%
Cederlof 1966	1 wk	T: Prednisolone acetate	Distinct improvement	18	26	69%	13%	No significant difference
		C: Saline		14	25	56%
Cederlof 1966	3 wk	T: Prednisolone acetate	Distinct improvement	19	26	73%	‐7%	No significant difference
		C: Saline		20	25	80%
Cederlof 1966	8 wk	T: Prednisolone acetate	Distinct improvement	17	26	65%	‐11%	No significant difference
		C: Saline		19	25	76%
Dieppe 1980a	6 wk	T: Triamcinolone hexacetonide	Patient treatment preference	10	12	83%	66%	1.5
		C: Saline		2	12	17%
Dieppe 1980b	2 wk	T: Triamcinolone hexacetonide	Patient treatment preference	20	24	83%	37%	2.7
		C: Saline		11	24	46%
Gaffney 1995	1 wk	T: Triamcinolone hexacetonide	Overall improvement	33	42	79%	31%	3.2
		C: Saline		20	42	48%
Gaffney 1995	6 wk	T: Trimacinolone hexacetonide	Overall improvement	24	42	57%	2%	No significant difference
		C: Saline		23	42	55%
Jones 1996	3 wk	T: Methylprednisolone	Treatment preference	30	59	51%	27%	3.7
		C: Saline		14	59	24%
Miller 1958	6 wk	T: Hydrocortisone	Patient opinion	31	37	84%	6%	No significant difference
		C: Saline		28	36	78%
Miller 1958	6 mth	T: Hydrocortisone	Patient opinion	30	34	88%	‐6%	No significant difference
		C: Saline		32	34	94%
Popov 1989	1 wk	T: Hydrocortisone	Patient global	11	12	92%	19%	No significant difference
		C: Physiologic solution		8	11	73%
Popov 1989	1 wk	T: Triamcinolone acetonide	Patient global	7	7	100%	27%	3.7
		C: Physiologic solution		8	11	73%
Wright 1960	2 wk	T: Hydrocortisone	Number of knees improved	19	38	50%	14%	No significant difference
		C: Vehicle		12	33	36%
Wright 1960	2 wk	T: Hydrocortisone tertiary butylacetate	Number of knees improved	25	38	66%	30%	3.3
		C: Vehicle		12	33	36%
* Pooled NNT

Table 2. Clinical benefit: Corticosteroid versus placebo ‐ patient global assessment

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Table 3. Clinical benefit: Corticosteroid versus arthroscopy (joint lavage) ‐ dichotomous

Study	Time	Treatment	Outcome	No. improved	No. of pts.	Risk (%)	Risk Difference	NNT
Ravaud 1999	1 wk	T: Cortivazol	% responders (greater than 30% decrease in VAS pain)	16	25	64%	16%	No significant difference
		C: Joint lavage + IA Placebo		10	21	48%
Ravaud 1999	4 wk	T: Cortivazol	% responders (greater than30% decrease in VAS pain)	14	25	56%	8%	No significant difference
		C: Joint lavage + IA Placebo		10	21	48%
Ravaud 1999	12 wk	T: Cortivazol	% responders (greater than 30% decrease in VAS pain)	13	25	52%	4%	No significant difference
		C: Joint lavage + IA Placebo		10	21	48%
Ravaud 1999	24 wk	T: Cortivazol	% responders (greater than 30% decrease in VAS pain)	12	25	48%	0%	No significant difference
		C: Joint lavage + IA Placebo		10	21	48%
Smith 2003	2 wk	T: Arthroscopy+joint lavage+ methylprednisolone acetate	% responders (greater than or equal to 30% decrease in pain on movement)	26	38	68%	13%	No significant difference
		C: Arthroscopy+joint lavage+saline		18	33	55%
Smith 2003	4 wk	T: Arthroscopy+joint lavage+methylprednisolone acetate	% responders (greater than or equal to 30% decrease in pain on movement)	25	38	66%	8%	No significant difference
		C: Arthroscopy+joint lavage+saline		19	33	58%
Smith 2003	8 wk	T: Arthroscopy+joint lavage+methylprednisolone acetate	% responders (greater than or equal to 30% decrease in pain on movement)	23	38	61%	6%	No significant difference
		C: Arthroscopy+joint lavage+saline		18	33	55%
Smith 2003	12 wk	T: Arthroscopy+joint lavage+methylprednisolone acetate	% responders (greater than or equal to 30% decrease in pain on movement)	18	38	47%	‐8%	No significant difference
		C: Arthroscopy+joint lavage+saline		18	33	55%
Smith 2003	24 wk	T: Arthroscopy+joint lavage+methylprednisolone acetate	% responders (greater than or equal to 30% decrease in pain on movement)	15	38	39%	‐3%	No significant difference
		C: Arthroscopy+joint lavage+saline		14	33	42%
Smith 2003	2 wk	T: Arthroscopy+joint lavage+methylprednisolone acetate	OARSI responder criteria (greater than or equal to 20% decrease in pain VAS and greater than10 mm absolute and/or improvement in function greater than 20% and greater than 10 mm absolute)	25	38	66%	11%	No significant difference
		C: Arthroscopy+joint lavage+saline		15	33	45%
Smith 2003	4 wk	T: Arthroscopy+joint lavage+methylprednisolone	OARSI responder criteria (greater than or equal to 20% decrease in pain VAS and greater than 10 mm absolute and/or improvement function greater than 20% and greater than 10 mm absolute)	22	38	58%	25%	No significant difference
		C: Arthroscopy+joint lavage+saline		11	33	33%
Smith 2003	8 wk	T: Arthroscopy+joint lavage+methylprednisolone acetate	OARSI responder criteria (greater than or equal to 20% decrease in pain VAS and greater than 10 mm absolute and/or improvement function greater than 20% and greater than 10 mm absolute)	21	38	55%	22%	No significant difference
		C: Arthroscopy+joint lavage+saline		11	33	33%
Smith 2003	12 wk	T: Arthroscopy+joint lavage+methylprednisolone	OARSI responder criteria (greater than or equal to 20% decrease in pain and greater than 10 mm absolute and/or improvement function greater than 20% and greater than 10 mm absolute)	18	38	47%	17%	No significant difference
		C: Arthroscopy+joint lavage+saline		10	33	30%
Smith 2003	24 wk	T: Arthroscopy+joint lavage+methylprednisolone	OARSI responder criteria (greater than or equal to 20% decrease in pain VAS and greater than 10 mm absolute and/or improvement function greater than 20% and greater than 10 mm absolute)	16	38	42%	21%	No significant difference
		C: Arthroscopy+joint lavage+saline		7	33	21%
Smith 2003	2 wk	T: Arthroscopy+joint lavage+methylprednisolone acetate	Presence of effusion	2	38	5%	‐22%	5
		C: Arthroscopy+joint lavage+saline		9	33	27%
Smith 2003	4 wk	T: Arthroscopy+joint lavage+methylprednisolone acetate	Presence of effusion	6	38	16%	‐17%	No significant difference
		C: Arthroscopy+joint lavage+saline		11	33	33%
Smith 2003	8 wk	T: Arthroscopy+joint lavage+methylprednisolone acetate	Presence of effusion	6	38	16%	‐17%	No significant difference
		C: Arthroscopy+joint lavage+saline		11	33	33%
Smith 2003	12 wk	T: Arthroscopy+joint lavage+methylprednisolone acetate	Presence of effusion	9	38	24%	‐3%	No significant difference
		C: Arthroscopy+joint lavage+saline		9	33	27%
Smith 2003	24 wk	T: Arthroscopy+joint lavage+methylprednisolone	Presence of effusion	10	38	26%	‐10%	No significant difference
		C: Arthroscopy+joint lavage+saline		12	33	36%

Table 3. Clinical benefit: Corticosteroid versus arthroscopy (joint lavage) ‐ dichotomous

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Table 4. Clinical benefit: Corticosteroid versus Hyalgan ‐ dichotomous outcome measures

Study	Time	Treatment	Outcome	No. improved	No. of pts	Risk (%)	Risk Difference	NNT
Leardini 1987	1‐4 wk	T: Hyalgan	Number of joints with moderate or severe pain under load	8	20	40	0
		C: MPA		8	20	40
Leardini 1991	1‐4 wk	T: Hyalgan	Number of patients with moderate or severe pain under load	14	20	70	25	4
		C: MPA		19	20	95
Pietrogrande 1991	1‐4 wk	T: Hyalgan	Number of patients with moderate or severe pain under load	21	45	47	7	14.3
		C: MPA		18	45	40
Leardini 1987	5‐13 wk	T: Hyalgan	Number of joints with moderate or severe pain under load	6	20	30	5	20
		C: MPA		7	20	35
Leardini 1991	5‐13 wk	T: Hyalgan	Number of patients with moderate or severe pain under load	13	20	65	35	2.9
		C: MPA		20	20	100
Pietrogrande 1991	5‐13 wk	T: Hyalgan	Number of patients with moderate or severe pain under load	13	44	30	21	4.8
		C: MPA		23	45	51
Leardini 1987	45.52 wk	T: Hyalgan	Number of joints with moderate or severe pain under load	8	15	53	12	8.3
		C: MPA		11	17	65
Leardini 1987	1‐4 wk	T: Hyalgan	Number of joints with moderate or severe walking pain	11	20	55	10	10
		C: MPA		9	20	45
Leardini 1987	5‐13 wk	T: Hyalgan	Number of joints with moderate or severe walking pain	8	20	40	10	10
		C: MPA		10	20	50
Leardini 1987	45‐52 wk	T: Hyalgan	Number of joints with moderate or severe walking pain	11	15	73	2	50
		C: MPA		12	17	71
Leardini 1991	1‐4 wk	T: Hyalgan	Number of patients with at least moderate or greater night pain	1	20	5	15	6.7
		C: MPA		4	20	20
Pietrogrande 1991	1‐4 wk	T: Hyalgan	Number of patients with at least moderate or greater night pain	5	45	11	9	11.1
		C: MPA		1	45	2
Leardini 1991	5‐13 wk	T: Hyalgan	Number of patients with at least moderate or greater night pain	0	20	0	20	5
		C: MPA		4	20	20
Pietrogrande 1991	5‐13 wk	T: Hyalgan	Number of patients with at least moderate or greater night pain	0	44	0
		C: MPA		2	45	4	4	25
Leardini 1991	1‐4 wk	T: Hyalgan	Number of patients with moderate or greater rest pain	6	20	30	30	3.3
		C: MPA		12	20	60
Pietrogrande 1991	1‐4 wk	T: Hyalgan	Number of patients with moderate or greater rest pain	7	45	16	0	0
		C: MPA		7	45	16
Leardini 1991	5‐13 wk	T: Hyalgan	Number of patients with moderate or greater rest pain	6	20	30	45	2.2
		C: MPA		15	20	75
Pietrogrande 1991	5‐13 wk	T: Hyalgan	Number of patients with moderate or greater rest pain	1	44	2	5	20
		C: MPA		3	45	7
Frizziero 2002	1‐4 wk	T: Hyalgan	Patient global (number of patients very good or good)	21	46	46	‐40	2.5
		C: MPA		32	37	86
Leardini 1991	1‐4 wk	T: Hyalgan	Patient global (number of patients very good or good)	11	20	55	10	10
		C: MPA		9	20	45
Pietrogrande 1991	1‐4 wk	T: Hyalgan	Patient global (number of patients very good or good)	32	45	71	24	4.2
		C: MPA		21	45	47
Leardini 1991	5‐13 wk	T: Hyalgan	Patient global (number of patients very good or good)	10	20	50	15	6.7
		C: MPA		7	20	35
Pietrogrande 1991	5‐13 wk	T: Hyalgan	Patient global (number of patients very good or good)	31	45	69	36	2.8
		C: MPA		15	45	33
Frizziero 2002	14‐26 wk	T: Hyalgan	Patient global (number of patients very good or good)	30	38	79	4	25
		C: MPA		24	32	75

Table 4. Clinical benefit: Corticosteroid versus Hyalgan ‐ dichotomous outcome measures

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Table 5. Clinical benefit: Betamethasone versus Orthovisc ‐ dichotomous outcome measures

Study	Time	Treatment	Outcome	No. improved	No. of pts.	Risk (%)	Risk difference	NNT
Tekeoglu 1998	1‐4 wk	E: Orthovisc	Patient global (number of patients good or very good)	10	20	50	‐10	10
		C: Betamethasone		12	20	60
Tekeoglu 1998	5‐13 wk	E: Orthovisc	Patient global (number of patients good or very good)	15	20	75	35	2.9
		C: Betamethasone

Table 5. Clinical benefit: Betamethasone versus Orthovisc ‐ dichotomous outcome measures

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Table 6. Clinical benefit: Corticosteroid versus corticosteroid ‐ dichotomous measures

Study	Time	Treatment	Outcome	No. improved	No. of pts	Risk (% occurrence)	Risk Difference	NNT
Thorpe 1985	20 wk	T: Triamcinolone acetonide	Number of knees excellent or good	19	30	63%	4%	No significant difference
		C: Methylprednisolone acetate		22	37	59%
Valtonen 1981	1 wk	T: Triamcinolone hexacetonide	Number of patients reporting pain reduction	16	21	76%	33%	3
		C: Betamethasone		9	21	43%
Valtonen 1981	2 wk	T: Triamcinolone hexacetonide	Number of patients reporting pain reduction	18	21	86%	38%	3
		C: Betamethasone		10	21	48%
Valtonen 1981	4 wk	T: Triamcinolone hexacetonide	Number of patients reporting pain reduction	16	21	76%	38%	3
		C: Betamethasone		8	21	38%
Valtonen 1981	1 wk	T: Triamcinolone hexacetonide	Number of patients showing improvement	19	21	90%	23%	No significant difference
		C: Betamethasone		14	21	67%
Wright 1980	2 wk	T: Hydrocortisone tertiary‐butylacetate	Number of knees improved	25	38	66%	16%	No significant difference
		C: Hydrocortisone		19	38	50%
Popov 1989	1 wk	T: Hydrocortisone	Patient global assessment	11	12	92%	‐8%	No significant difference
		C: Triamcinolone acetonide		7	7	100%
Pyne 2004	3 wk	T: Triamcinolone hexacetonide	Number of patients reporting improvement (i.e. better)	25	29	86%	4%	No significant difference
		C: Methylprednisolone acetate		23	28	82%
Pyne 2004	8 wk	T: Triamcinolone hexacetonide	Number of patients reporting improvement (i.e. better)	15	29	52%	12%	No significant difference
		C: Methylprednisolone acetate		18	28	64%

Table 6. Clinical benefit: Corticosteroid versus corticosteroid ‐ dichotomous measures

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Table 7. Clinical benefit: Corticosteroid versus placebo ‐ continuous outcome measures

Study	Time	Treatment	Outcome (scale)	N of pts	Baseline Mean	End of Study Mean	Absolute benefit	Relative difference
Dieppe 1980b	1 wk	T: Triamcinolone hexacetonide first	Pain (0‐10 cm VAS)	12	7.6	3.7	1.1 (W)	15% (W)
		C: Saline second		12	7.6	2.6
Dieppe 1980b	1 wk	T: Triamcinolone hexacetonide second	Pain (0‐10 cm VAS)	12	8.2	3.8	‐3.2 (I)	‐39% (I)
		C: Saline first		12	8.2	7
Gaffney 1995	6 wk	T: Triamcinolone hexacetonide	Pain (0‐100 mm VAS)	42	52	35.8	‐2.1 (I)	No significant difference
		C: Saline		42	57	42.9
Gaffney 1995	6 wk	T: Triamcinolone hexacetonide	Walking distance (m)	42	48.9	50.8	‐3.2 (W)	No significant difference
		C: Saline		42	46.5	51.6
Gaffney 1995	6 wk	T: Triamcinolone hexacetonide	Modified HAQ (0‐9)	42	4.7	4.5	0	No significant difference
		C: Saline		42	4.4	4.2
Raynauld 2003	52 wk	T: Triamcinolone acetonide	Pain at night (0‐100 mm VAS)	33	26.2	15.5	‐13.3 (I)	No significant difference
		C: Saline		33	23.2	25.8
Raynauld 2003	104 wk	T: Triamcinolone acetonide	Pain at night (0‐100 mm VAS)	33	26.2	23.4	‐1.8 (W)	No significant difference
		C: Saline		33	23.2	22.2
Raynauld 2003	52 wk	T: Triamcinolone acetonide	WOMAC Pain (0‐100 mm VAS)	33	40.1	22.7	‐6.2 (I)	No significant difference
		C: Saline		33	47.7	36.5
Raynauld 2003	104 wk	T: Triamcinolone acetonide	WOMAC pain (0‐100 mm VAS)	33	40.1	28.7	2.4 (I)	No significant difference
		C: Saline		33	47.7	33.9
Raynauld 2003	52 wk	T: Triamcinolone acetonide	WOMAC function (0‐100 mm VAS)	33	32.9	20.2	0.4 (I)	No significant difference
		C: Saline		33	39.3	26.2
Raynauld 2003	104 wk	T: Triamcinolone acetonide	WOMAC function (0‐100 mm VAS)	33	32.9	22.0	2.2 (I)	No significant difference
		C: Saline		33	39.3	26.2
Raynauld 2003	52 wk	T: Triamcinolone acetonide	50 foot walking time (sec)	33	11.6	15.5	3.9 (W)	No significant difference
		C: Saline		33	11.6	11.6
Raynauld 2003	104 wk	T: Triamcinolone acetonide	50‐foot walking time (sec)	33	11.6	11.2	‐0.1 (I)	No significant difference
		C: Saline		33	11.6	11.9
Raynauld 2003	52 wk	T: Triamcinolone acetonide	Range of motion (degrees)	33	126.9	131.3	1.7 (I)	No significant difference
		C: Saline		33	129.9	132.6
Raynauld 2003	104 wk	T: Triamcinolone acetonide	Range of motion (degrees)	33	126.9	140.2	13.4 (I)	10% (I)
		C: Saline		33	129.9	129.8
Raynauld 2003	52 wk	T: Triamcinolone acetonide	Patient global assessment (0‐100 mm VAS)	33	44.6	38.8	0.2 (W)	No significant difference
		C: Saline		33	45.2	39.2
Raynauld 2003	104 wk	T: Triamcinolone acetonide	Patient global assessment (0‐100 mm VAS)	33	44.6	37.0	‐0.5 (I)	No significant difference
		C: Saline		33	45.2	38.1
Raynauld 2003	52 wk	T: Triamcinolone acetonide	WOMAC stiffness (0‐100 mm VAS)	33	45.3	32.1	3.0 (W)	No significant difference
		C: Saline		33	55.0	38.8
Raynauld 2003	104 wk	T: Triamcinolone acetonide	WOMAC stiffness (0‐100 mm VAS)	33	45.3	33.2	1.1 (W)	No significant difference
		C: Saline		33	55.0	41.8
Raynauld 2003	52 wk	T: Triamcinolone acetonide	WOMAC total Index (0‐100 mm VAS)	33	35.3	21.6	‐0.8	No significant difference
		C: Saline		33	42.3	29.4
Raynauld 2003	104 wk	T: Triamcinolone acetonide	WOMAC total Index (0‐100 mm VAS)	33	35.3	24.2	2.4 (W)	No significant difference
		C: Saline		33	42.3	28.8
Ravaud 1999	1 wk	T: Cortivazol	Pain (0‐100 mm VAS)	25	69.4	33.7	‐25 (I)	‐39% (I)
		C: Saline		28	63.7	53.0
Ravaud 1999	4 wk	T: Cortivazol	Pain (0‐100 mm VAS)	25	69.4	42.8	‐16.9 (I)	‐27% (I)
		C: Saline		28	63.7	54.0
Ravaud 1999	12 wk	T: Cortivazol	Pain (0‐100 mm VAS)	25	69.4	47.0	‐19.9 (I)	‐31% (I)
		C: Saline		28	63.7	61.2
Ravaud 1999	24 wk	T: Cortivazol	Pain (0‐100 mm VAS)	25	69.4	50.9	‐13.0 (I)	No significant difference
		C: Saline		28	63.7	58.2
Ravaud 1999	1 wk	T: Cortivazol	Lequesne Index (0‐24)	25	11.5	7.7	‐1.2 (I)	No significant difference
		C: Saline		28	12.5	9.9
Ravaud 1999	4 wk	T: Cortivazol	Lequesne Index (0‐24)	25	11.5	8.1	‐1.3 (I)	No significant difference
		C: Saline		28	12.5	10.4
Ravaud 1999	12 wk	T: Cortivazol	Lequesne Index (0‐24)	25	11.5	9.1	0	No significant difference
		C: Saline		28	12.5	10.1
Ravaud 1999	24 wk	T: Cortivazol	Lequesne Index (0‐24)	25	11.5	9.4	‐0.2 (I)	No significant difference
		C: Saline		28	12.5	10.6
Ravaud 1999	1 wk	T: Cortivazol	Patient global assessment (0‐100 mm VAS)	25	68.7	41.6	‐14.5 (I)	No significant difference
		C: Saline		28	69.7	57.1
Ravaud 1999	4 wk	T: Cortivazol	Patient global assessment (0‐100 mm VAS)	25	68.7	47.2	‐11.9 (I)	No significant difference
		C: Saline		28	69.7	60.1
Ravaud 1999	12 wk	T: Cortivazol	Patient global assessment (0‐100 mm VAS)	25	68.7	50.9	‐8.2 (I)	No significant difference
		C: Saline		28	69.7	60.1
Ravaud 1999	24 wk	T: Cortivazol	Patient global assessment (0‐100 mm VAS)	25	68.7	58.3	‐2.7 (I)	No significant difference
		C: Saline		28	69.7	62.0
Raynauld 2003	52 wk	T: Triamcinolone acetonide	Joint space width (mm)	33	4.07	4.00	0	No significant difference
		C: Saline		33	3.93	3.86
Raynauld 2003	104 wk	T: Triamcinolone acetonide	Joint space width (mm)	33	4.07	4.02	0.2 (I)	No significant difference
		C: Saline		33	3.93	3.86
Gaffney 1995	1 wk	T: Triamcinolone hexacetonide	Modified HAQ (0‐9)	42	4.7	4.2	‐9 (I)	No significant difference
		C: Saline		42	4.4	4.3
Gaffney 1995	1 wk	T: Triamcinolone hexacetonide	Walking distance (m)	42	48.9	50.7	0	No significant difference
		C: Saline		42	46.5	48.3

Table 7. Clinical benefit: Corticosteroid versus placebo ‐ continuous outcome measures

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Table 8. Clinical benefit: Corticosteroid versus arthroscopy (joint lavage) ‐ continuous

Study	Time	Treatment	Outcome (scale)	N of pts	Baseline Mean	End of study mean	Absolute benefit	Relative difference
Ravaud 1999	1 wk	T: Cortivazol	Pain (0‐100 mm VAS)	25	69.40	33.70	‐7.8 (I)	No significant difference
		C: Joint lavage+IA placebo		21	73.60	45.70
Ravaud 1999	4 wk	T: Cortivazol	Pain (0‐100 mm VAS)	25	69.40	42.80	‐1.7 (I)	No significant difference
		C: Joint lavage+IA placebo		21	73.60	48.70
Ravaud 1999	12 wk	T: Cortivazol	Pain (0‐100 mm VAS)	25	69.40	47.00	8.7 (W)	No significant difference
		C: Joint lavage+IA placebo		21	73.60	42.50
Ravaud 1999	24 wk	T: Cortivazol	Pain (0‐100 mm VAS)	25	69.40	50.90	7.3 (W)	No significant difference
		C: Joint lavage+IA placebo		21	73.60	47.80
Ravaud 1999	1 wk	T: Cortivazol	Lequesne Index (0‐24)	25	11.50	7.70	‐1.5 (I)	No significant difference
		C: Joint lavage+IA placebo		21	10.90	8.60
Ravaud 1999	4 wk	T: Cortivazol	Lequesne Index (0‐24)	25	11.50	8.10	‐0.9 (I)	No significant difference
		C: Joint lavage+IA placebo		21	10.90	8.40
Ravaud 1999	12 wk	T: Cortivazol	Lequesne Index (0‐24)	25	11.50	9.10	0.4 (W)	No significant difference
		C: Joint lavage+IA placebo		21	10.90	8.10
Ravaud 1999	24 wk	T: Cortivazol	Lequesne Index (0‐24)	25	11.50	9.40	0	No significant difference
		C: Joint lavage+IA placebo		21	10.90	8.80
Ravaud 1999	1 wk	T: Cortivazol	Patient global assessment (0‐100 mm VAS)	25	68.70	41.60	‐6.4 (I)	No significant difference
		C: Joint lavage+IA placebo		21	72.20	51.50
Ravaud 1999	4 wk	T: Cortivazol	Patient global assessment (0‐100 mm VAS)	25	68.70	47.20	2.4 (W)	No significant difference
		C: Joint lavage+IA placebo		21	72.20	48.30
Ravaud 1999	12 wk	T: Cortivazol	Patient global assessment (0‐100 mm VAS)	25	68.70	50.90	10.4 (W)	No significant difference
		C: Joint lavage+IA placebo		21	72.20	44.00
Ravaud 1999	24 wk	T: Cortivazol	Patient global assessment (0‐100 mm VAS)	25	68.70	58.30	11.7 (W)	No significant difference
		C: Joint lavage+IA placebo		21	72.20	50.10

Table 8. Clinical benefit: Corticosteroid versus arthroscopy (joint lavage) ‐ continuous

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Table 9. Clinical benefit: Corticosteroid versus Hyalgan ‐ continuous outcome measures

Study	Time	Treatment	Outcome (scale)	N of Pts	Baseline Mean	End of study mean	Absolute benefit	Relative benefit
Leardini 1991	1‐4 wk	T: Hyalgan	Pain intensity (0‐100 mm VAS)	20	41.30	13.00	‐4.5 (I)	‐13.5% (I)
		C: MPA		20	33.40	9.60
Leardini 1991	1‐4 wk	T: Hyalgan	Pain intensity (0‐100 mm VAS)	20	47.40	10.73	‐14.0 (I)	‐32.1% (I)
		C: MPA		20	43.54	20.83
Pietrogrande 1991	1‐4 wk	T: Hyalgan	Pain intensity (0‐100 mm VAS)	45	64.89	20.00	‐5.3 (I)	‐8.2% (I)
		C: MPA		45	64.89	25.32
Leardini 1987	5‐13 wk	T: Hyalgan	Pain intensity (0‐100 mm VAS)	20	41.30	11.20	‐5.8 (I)	‐17.4% (I)
		C: MPA		20	33.40	9.10
Leardini 1991	5‐13 wk	T: Hyalgan	Pain intensity (0‐100 mm VAS)	20	47.40	9.48	‐17.7 (I)	‐40.7% (I)
		C: MPA		20	43.54	23.33
Pietrogrande 1991	5‐13 wk	T: Hyalgan	Pain intensity (0‐100 mm VAS)	45	64.89	19.71	‐7.3 (I)	‐11.3% (I)
		C: MPA		17	33.40	17.80
Leardini 1987	45‐52 wk	T: Hyalgan	Pain intensity (0‐100 mm VAS)	15	41.30	20.30	‐5.4 (I)	‐16.2% (I)
		C: MPA		17	33.40	17.80
Leardini 1987	1‐4 wk	T: Hyalgan	Range of motion (flexion ‐ degrees)	20	108.40	113.40	‐3.2 (W)	‐3.1% (W)
		C: MPA		20	104.20	112.40
Pietrogrande 1991	1‐4 wk	T: Hyalgan	Range of motion (flexion ‐ degrees)	45	114.13	121.38	3.3 (I)	3% (I)
		C: MPA		45	108.81	112.75
Leardini 1987	5‐13 wk	T: Hyalgan	Range of motion (flexion ‐degrees)	20	108.40	116.70	‐1.8 (W)	‐1.7% (W)
		C: MPA		20	104.20	114.30
Pietrogrande 1991	5‐13 wk	T: Hyalgan	Range of motion (flexion ‐ degrees)	45	114.13	121.10	2.4 (I)	2.2% (I)
		C: MPA		45	108.81	113.35
Leardini 1987	45‐52 wk	T: Hyalgan	Range of motion (flexion ‐ degrees)	15	108.40	109.60	‐2.7 (W)	‐2.6% (W)
		C: MPA		17	104.20	108.10
Jones 1995	End of treatment	T: Hyalgan	Pain on nominated activity (0‐100 mm VAS)	32	77.2	56.5	‐1.6 (I)	‐2.1% (I)
		C: Triamcinolone hexacetonide		31	75.8	56.7
Jones 1995	End of treatment	T: Hyalgan	Pain at rest (0‐100 mm VAS)	32	53.2	39.9	1.4 (W)	2.5% (W)
		C: Triamcinolone hexacetonide		31	55.3	40.6
Jones 1995	End of treatment	T: Hyalgan	Pain at night (0‐100 mm VAS)	32	57.8	35.9	‐2.7 (I)	‐4.3% (I)
		C: Triamcinolone hexacetonide		31	62.2	43.0
Jones 1995	14‐26 wk	T: Hyalgan	Pain on nominated activity (0‐100 mm VAS)	12	77.2	44.3	‐11.4 (I)	‐15.0% (I)
		C: Triamcinolone hexacetonide		8	75.8	54.3
Jones 1995	14‐26 wk	T: Hyalgan	Pain at rest (0‐100 mm VAS)	12	53.2	28.2	‐18.3 (I)	‐33.1% (I)
		C: Triamcinolone hexacetonide		8	55.3	48.6
Jones 1995	14‐26 wk	T: Hyalgan	Pain at night (0‐100 mm VAS)	12	57.8	15.4	‐16.3 (I)	‐26.2% (I)
		C: Triamcinolone hexacetonide		8	62.2	36.1

Table 9. Clinical benefit: Corticosteroid versus Hyalgan ‐ continuous outcome measures

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Table 10. Clinical benefit: Triamcinolone hexacetonide versus Hylan G‐F 20 ‐ continuous

Study	Time	Treatment group	Outcome (scale)	N of Pts	Baseline Mean	End of Study Mean	Absolute Benefit	Relative Benefit
Caborn 2004	5‐13 wk	E: Hylan G‐F 20	WOMAC ‐ pain walking on a flat surface (0‐4 Likert)	113	2.12	1.20	‐0.37 (I)	‐17.2% (I)
		C: Triamcinolone hexacetonide		102	2.15	1.60
Caborn 2004	14‐26 wk	E: Hylan G‐F 20	WOMAC ‐ pain walking on a flat surface (0‐4 Likert)	113	2.12	1.40	‐0.37 (I)	‐17.2% (I)
		C: Triamcinolone hexacetonide		102	2.15	1.80
Caborn 2004	5‐13 wk	E: Hylan G‐F 20	WOMAC physical function (0‐68 Likert)	113	38.60	23.50	‐5.70 (I)	‐15.0% (I)
		C: Triamcinolone hexacetonide		102	37.90	28.50
Caborn 2004	14‐26 wk	E: Hylan G‐F 20	WOMAC physical function (0‐68 Likert)	113	38.60	25.50	‐7.20 (I)	‐19.0% (I)
		C: Triamcinolone hexacetonide		102	37.90	30.70
Caborn 2004	5‐13 wk	E: Hylan G‐F 20	WOMAC total score (0‐96 Likert)	113	54.00	32.70	‐8.30 (I)	‐15.6% (I)
		C: Triamcinolone hexacetonide		102	53.10	40.10
Caborn 2004	14.26 wk	E: Hylan G‐F 20	WOMAC total score (0‐96 Likert)	113	54.00	35.60	‐8.20 (I)	‐15.4% (I)
		C: Triamcinolone hexacetonide		102	53.10	42.90
Caborn 2004	5‐13 wk	E: Hylan G‐F 20	Patient global assessment (0‐100 mm VAS)	113	68.40	36.70	‐14.50 (I)	‐21.5% (I)
		C: Triamcinolone hexacetonide		102	53.10	42.90
Caborn 2004	14‐26 wk	E: Hylan G‐F 20	Patient global assessment (0‐100 mm VAS)	113	68.40	40.30	‐16.20 (I)	‐24.1% (I)
		C: Triamcinolone hexacetonide		102	67.30	55.40

Table 10. Clinical benefit: Triamcinolone hexacetonide versus Hylan G‐F 20 ‐ continuous

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Table 11. Clinical benefit: Corticosteroid versus Orthovisc ‐ continuous outcome measures

Study	Time	Treatment	Outcome (scale)	N of Pts	Baseline Mean	End of Study Mean	Absolute	Relative
Tascioglu 2003	1‐4 wk	E: Orthovisc	Pain on weight bearing (0‐100 mm VAS)	28	54.26	31.83	3.87 (W)	7.3% (W)
		C: 6‐MPA		27	53.10	26.80
Tascioglu 2003	2‐4 wk	E: Orthovisc	Pain at rest (0‐100 mm VAS)	28	30.43	11.83	3.00 (W)	10.0% (W)
		C: 6‐MPA		27	29.90	8.30
Tascioglu 2003	1‐4 wk	E: Orthovisc	Pain on walking (0‐100 mm VAS)	28	67.60	37.60	1.00 (W)	1.5% (W)
		C: 6‐MPA		27	69.00	38.00
Tascioglu 2003	1‐4 wk	E: Orthovisc	Lequesne Index (0‐24)	28	10.23	7.86	‐0.47 (I)	‐4.8% (I)
		C: 6‐MPA		27	9.86	7.96
Tascioglu 2003	1‐4 wk	E: Orthovisc	Flexion (degrees)	28	108.70	116.36	1.52 (I)	1.4% (I)
		C: 6‐MPA		27	108.06	114.20
Tascioglu 2003	5‐13 wk	E: Orthovisc	Pain on weight bearing (0‐100 mm VAS)	28	54.26	22.86	‐16.80 (I)	‐31.6% (I)
		C: 6‐MPA		27	53.10	38.50
Tascioglu 2003	5‐13 wk	E: Orthovisc	Pain at rest (0‐100 mm VAS)	28	30.43	12.00	‐8.23 (I)	‐27.5% (I)
		C: 6‐MPA		27	29.90	19.70
Tascioglu 2003	5‐13 wk	E: Orthovisc	Pain on walking (0‐100 mm VAS)	28	67.60	32.03	‐17.03 (I)	‐24.7% (I)
		C: 6‐MPA		27	69.00	50.46
Tascioglu 2003	5‐13 wk	E: Orthovisc	Lequesne Index (0‐24)	28	10.23	7.66	‐1.77 (I)	‐17.9% (I)
		C: 6‐MPA		27	9.86	9.06
Tascioglu 2003	5‐13 wk	E: Orthovisc	Flexion (degrees)	28	108.70	115.76	1.72 (I)	1.6% (I)
		C: 6‐MPA		27	108.06	113.40
Tascioglu 2003	14‐26 wk	E: Orthovisc	Pain on weight bearing (0‐100 mm VAS)	28	54.26	40.96	‐16.56 (I)	‐31.2% (I)
		C: 6‐MPA		27	53.10	56.36
Tascioglu 2003	14‐26 wk	E: Orthovisc	Pain at rest (0‐100 mm VAS)	28	30.43	23.56	‐3.43 (I)	‐11.5% (I)
		C: 6‐MPA		27	29.90	26.46
Tascioglu 2003	14‐26 wk	E: Orthovisc	Pain on walking (0‐100 mm VAS)	28	67.60	51.16	‐13.50 (I)	‐19.6% (I)
		C: 6‐MPA		27	69.00	66.06
Tascioglu 2003	14‐26 wk	E: Orthovisc	Lequesne Index (0‐24)	28	10.23	8.46	‐1.51 (I)	‐15.3% (I)
		C: 6‐MPA		27	9.86	9.60
Tascioglu 2003	14‐26 wk	E: Orthovisc	Flexion (degrees)	28	108.70	114.60	4.36 (I)	4.0% (I)
		C: 6‐MPA		27	108.06	109.60
Tekeoglu 1998	1‐4 wk	E: Orthovisc	WOMAC function (17‐85 Likert)	20	45.50	34.30	3.10 (W)	6.8% (W)
		C: Betamethasone		20	45.60	31.30
Tekeoglu 1998	5‐13 wk	E: Orthovisc	WOMAC function (17‐85 Likert)	20	45.50	30.90	‐8.90 (I)	‐19.5% (I)
		C: Betamethasone		20	45.60	39.90
Tekeoglu 1998	1‐4 wk	E: Orthovisc	Maximum flexion (degrees)	20	110.50	117.30	0.60 (I)	0.5% (I)
		C: Betamethasone		20	116.00	122.20
Tekeoglu 1998	5‐13 wk	E: Orthovisc	Maximum flexion (degrees)	20	110.50	121.20	‐1.55 (W)	‐1.3% (W)
		C: Betamethasone		20	116.00	128.25

Table 11. Clinical benefit: Corticosteroid versus Orthovisc ‐ continuous outcome measures

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Table 12. Clinical benefit: Corticosteroid versus corticosteroid ‐ continuous measures

Study	Time	Treatment	Outcome (scale)	N of pts	Baseline Mean	End of Study	Absolute benefit	Relative difference
Valtonen 1981	4 wk	T: Triamcinolone hexacetonide	Flexion (degrees)	21	96	102	4 (I)	No significant difference
		C: Betamethasone		21	100	102

Table 12. Clinical benefit: Corticosteroid versus corticosteroid ‐ continuous measures

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Table 13. Effect size based on Standardised Mean Difference: Corticosteroid versus placebo

Product	Comparison	Outcome	1 wk	2 wk	4 wk	6 wk	12 wk	24 wk	52 wk
Corticosteroid	Placebo	Pain (0‐100 mm VAS)	‐0.83;(‐1.16,‐0.51);p<0.00001		‐0.42;(‐0.96,0.13);p=0.13	‐0.27;(‐0.70,0.16);p=0.22	‐0.58;(‐1.13,‐0.03);p=0.04	‐0.26;(‐0.80,0.29);p=0.4
Triamcinolone acetonide	Saline	WOMAC pain (0‐100 mm VAS)						*‐0.51;(‐1.00,‐0.02);p=0.04	**‐0.19;(‐0.67,0.29);p=0.44
Triamcinolone acetonide	Saline	Pain at night (0‐100 mm VAS)						*‐0.39;(‐0.87,0.10);p=0.12	**0.05;(‐0.44,0.53);p=0.85
Triamcinolone acetonide	Saline	WOMAC function (0‐100 mm VAS)						*‐0.24;(‐0.73,0.24);p=0.33	**‐0.17;(‐0.65,0.31);p=0.49
Cortivazol	Saline	Lequesne Index (0‐24)	‐0.43;(‐0.98,0.11);p=0.12		‐0.51;(‐1.06,0.03);p=0.07		‐0.23;(‐0.77,0.32);p=0.4	‐0.27;(‐0.81,0.27);p=0.3
Triamcinolone hexacetonide	Saline	Modified HAQ (0‐9)	‐0.05;(‐0.43,0.38);p=0.8			0.14;(‐0.29,0.57);p=0.5
Triamcinolone acetonide	Saline	50 foot walk time (sec)						*‐0.07;(‐0.55,0.42);p=0.79	**‐0.23;(‐0.72,0.25);p=0.34
Triamcinolone hexacetonide	Saline	Walking distance (m)	0.15;(‐0.28,0.58);p=0.5			‐0.05;(‐0.48,0.37);p=0.8
Triamcinolone acetonide	Saline	Range of motion (degrees)						*‐0.10;(‐0.58,0.39);p=0.69	**0.78;(0.28,1.28);p=0.002
Cortivazol	Saline	Patient global (0‐100 mm VAS)	‐0.49;(‐1.04,0.06);p=0.08		‐0.41;(‐0.96,0.13);p=0.14		‐0.33;(‐0.87,0.21);p=0.2	‐0.12;(‐0.66,0.42);p=0.7
Triamcinolone acetonide	Saline	Patient global (0‐100 mm VAS)						*‐0.01;(‐0.50,0.47);p=0.96	**‐0.04;(‐0.52,0.44);p=0.88
Triamcinolone acetonide	Saline	WOMAC stiffness (0‐100 mm VAS)						*‐0.20;(‐0.68,0.28);p=0.42	**‐0.34;(‐0.82,0.15);p=0.17
Triamcinolone acetonide	Saline	WOMAC total (0‐100 mm VAS)						*‐0.30;(‐0.78,0.19);p=0.23	**‐0.18;(‐0.66,0.31);p=0.48
Triamcinolone acetonide	Saline	Joint space width (mm)						*0.02;(‐0.46,0.50);p=0.9	**0.03;(‐0.43,0.51);p=0.9
Wk 52, **Wk 104

Table 13. Effect size based on Standardised Mean Difference: Corticosteroid versus placebo

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Table 14. Effect size based on Standardised Mean Difference:Corticosteroid versus joint la

Product	Comparison	Outcome	1 wk	4 wk	12 wk	24 wk
Cortivazol	Joint lavage+IA Placebo	Pain (0‐100 mm VAS)	‐0.47;(‐1.06,0.12);p=0.12	‐0.21;(‐0.79,0.37);p=0.5	0.16;(‐0.42,0.74);p=0.6	0.11;(‐0.47,0.69);p=0.7
Cortivazol	Joint lavage+IA Placebo	Lequesne Index (0‐24)	‐0.20;(0.78,0.38);p=0.5	‐0.07;(‐0.65,0.51);p=0.8	0.23;(‐0.35,0.81);p=0.4	0.13;(‐0.45,0.71);p=0.7
Cortivazol	Joint lavage+IA Placebo	Patient global (0‐100 mm VAS)	‐0.32;(‐0.91,0.26);p=0.3	‐0.04;(‐0.62,0.55);p=0.9	0.22;(‐0.36,0.81);p=0.5	0.25;(‐0.33,0.83);p=0.4

Table 14. Effect size based on Standardised Mean Difference:Corticosteroid versus joint la

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Table 15. Effect size based on Standardised Mean Difference:Corticosteroid versus Hyalgan

Product	Comparison	Outcome	1‐4 wk	5‐13 wk	14‐26 wk	45‐52 wk
Hyalgan	Methylprednisolone acetate	Spontaneous pain intensity (0‐100 VAS)	‐0.27;(‐0.58,0.03);p=0.08	‐0.41;(‐0.90,0.08);p=0.10		0.10;(‐0.60,0.79);p=0.8
	Methylprednsolone acetate	Range of motion	0.39;(0.05,0.74);p=0.03	0.40;(0.05,0.75);p=0.02		0.07;(‐0.62,0.77);p=0.8
	Triamcinolone hexacetonide	Pain on nominated activity (0‐100 mm VAS)	‐0.01;(‐0.53,0.52);p=1 (end of treatment)		‐0.39;(‐1.29,0.52);p=0.4
	Triamcinolone hexacetonide	Pain at rest (0‐100 mm VAS)	‐0.02;(‐0.54,0.50);p=0.9 (end of treatment)		‐0.76;(‐1.69,0.18);p=0.11
	Triamcinolone hexacetonide	Pain at night (0‐100 mm VAS)	‐0.21;(‐0.74,0.31);p=0.4 (end of treatment)		‐1.11;(‐2.09,‐0.14);p=0.03
	Mucopolysaccharide polysulfuric acid ester	Pain (0‐30)	0.66;(0.14,1.19);p=0.01 (end of treatment)
	Mucopolysaccharide polysulfuric acid ester	Function (0‐30)	0.11;(‐0.40,0.63);p=0.7 (end of treatment)
	Mucopolysaccharide polysulfuric acid ester	Range of motion (0‐10)	0.39;(‐0.13,0.91);p=0.14 (end of treatment)
	Mucopolysaccharide polysulfuric acid ester	Total Larson rating score (0‐77)	0.63;(0.10,1.16);p=0.02 (end of treatment)

Table 15. Effect size based on Standardised Mean Difference:Corticosteroid versus Hyalgan

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Table 16. Effect size based on Standardised Mean Difference:Corticosteroid versus Hylan GF

Product	Comparison	Outcome	1‐4 wk	5‐13 wk	14‐26 wk	45‐52 wk
Hylan G‐F 20	Triamcinolone hexacetonide	WOMAC pain question one (Likert)		‐0.43;(‐0.70,‐0.16);p=0.002	‐0.38;(‐0.65,‐0.11);p=0.005
	Triamcinolone hexacetonide	WOMAC function (Likert)		‐0.35;(‐0.62,‐0.08);p=0.01	‐0.36;(‐0.63,‐0.09);p=0.010
	Triamcinolone hexacetonide	WOMAC total score (Likert)		‐0.37;(‐0.64,‐0.10);p=0.007	‐0.36;(‐0.63,‐0.09);p=0.010
	Triamcinolone hexacetonide	Patient global (VAS)		‐0.54;(‐0.81;‐0.27);p=0.0001	‐0.57;(‐0.84,‐0.30);p=0.00004

Table 16. Effect size based on Standardised Mean Difference:Corticosteroid versus Hylan GF

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Table 17. Effect size based on Standardised Mean Difference:Corticosteroid versus Orthovis

Product	Comparison	Outcome	1‐4 wk	5‐13 wk	14‐26 wk	45‐52 wk
Orthovisc	Betamethasone	WOMAC function (VAS)	0.34;(‐0.29,0.96);p=0.3	‐1.06;(‐1.73,‐0.40);p=0.002
	Betamethasone	Flexion (degrees)	‐0.30;(‐0.93,0.32);p=0.3	‐0.51;(‐1.14,0.12);p=0.11
	6‐MPA	Pain weight bearing (VAS)	0.26;(‐0.27,0.79);p=0.3	‐0.92;(‐1.48,‐0.36);p=0.001	‐0.76;(‐1.31,‐0.21);p=0.007
	6‐MPA	Pain at rest (VAS)	0.33;(‐0.21,0.86);p=0.2	‐0.69;(‐1.24,‐0.15);p=0.01	‐0.23;(‐0.76,0.30);p=0.4
	6‐MPA	Pain on walking (VAS)	‐0.02;(‐0.55,0.51);p=0.9	‐0.89;(‐1.45,‐0.33);p=0.002	‐0.71;(‐1.25,‐0.16);p=0.01
	6‐MPA	Lequesne Index (0‐24)	‐0.06;(‐0.59,0.46);p=0.8	‐0.99;(‐1.56,‐0.43);p=0.0005	‐0.58;(‐1.12,‐0.04);p=0.04
	6‐MPA	Flexion (degrees)	0.24;(‐0.29,0.77);p=0.4	0.29;(‐0.24,0.83);p=0.3	0.54;(0.00,1.08);p=0.05

Table 17. Effect size based on Standardised Mean Difference:Corticosteroid versus Orthovis

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Table 18. Effect size based on Standardised Mean Difference:Corticosteroid versus Corticos

Trial	Product	Comparison	Outcome	Time	SMD(95% CI);P value
Valtonen 1981	Triamcinolone hexacetonide	Betamethasone	Flexion (degrees)	4 wk	0.00; (‐0.60,0.60); p=1

Table 18. Effect size based on Standardised Mean Difference:Corticosteroid versus Corticos

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Table 19. Discrepancies between RevMan analysis and published reports

Product	Study ID	Outcome	p value	Analysis	Statistical test	Description
6‐MPA/Orthovisc	Tascioglu 2003	six month pain on weight bearing	P (paper):ns, R (report): P value 0.004	ITT	one‐way ANOVA	P: no significant difference between groups; R: significant difference in favour of Orthovisc
6‐MPA/Orthovisc	Tascioglu 2003	six month pain on walking	P:ns, R: P value 0.008	ITT	one‐way ANOVA	P: no significant difference, R: significant difference in favour of Orthovisc
6‐MPA/Orthovisc	Tascioglu 2003	six month Lequesne Index	P:ns, R: P value 0.03	ITT	one‐way ANOVA	P: no significant difference, R:significant difference in favour of Orthovisc
6‐MPA/Orthovisc	Tascioglu 003	six month flexion	P:ns, R: P value 0.04	ITT	one‐way ANOVA	P: no significant difference, R: significant difference in favour of Orthovisc
Triamcinolone hexacetonide/Hyalgan	Jones 1995	Pain at rest (week 29)	P:significant, R: P value 0.09	PP/ITT	Not reported in publication.	P: significant difference in favour of HA versus TH (Table III) but with ITT, LOCF no statistically significant difference. R: based on on Table III, no difference.
Triamcinolone hexacetonide/Hyalgan	Jones 1995	Pain on nominated activity (week 29)	P:significant, R: P value 0.4	PP/ITT	Not reported in publication.	P: significant difference in favour of HA versus TH (Table III) but with ITT, LOCF no statistically significant difference. R: based on Table III, no difference.
Triamcinolone acetonide/Saline	Raynauld 2003	WOMAC pain at one year	P: ns (P value 0.22), R: P value 0.006	ITT	2‐sample t‐test at one‐year	P: no significant difference, R: significant difference in favour of triamcinolone acetonide compared to saline
Triamcinolone acetonide/Saline	Raynauld 2003	Pain at night (0‐100 mm VAS) at 2 years	P: P value 0.0047, R: P value 0.9	ITT	AUC for normalized values	P: significant difference in favour of triamcinolone acetonide compared to saline; R: no difference. However, using ANOVA for repeated measurements, the P reported no statistically significant difference at 2 years as well, P value 0.74.
Triamcinolone acetonice/Saline	Raynauld 2003	Range of motion at 2 years	P: P value 0.16, R: p<0.00001	ITT	ANOVA for repeated measurements at 2 years	P: no significant difference, R: significant difference in favour of triamcinolone hexacetonide compared to saline
Triamcinolone acetonide/Saline	Raynauld 2003	WOMAC stiffness at 2 years	P: P value 0.0511, R: P value 0.17	ITT	AUC for normalized values	P: significant difference in favour of triamcinolone acetonide compared to saline, R: no difference. However, using ANOVA for repeated measurements, the P (P value 0.86) and R (P value 0.17) both found no difference
Methylprednisolone acetate +arthroscopy/Saline + arthroscopy	Smith 2003	OARSI response criteria at 4 week	P: P value 0.004, R: P value 0.05	ITT	Generalized linear model with log link and binary error distribution to model the RR and RR was adjusted for severity of X‐ray grade and baseline score.	P: significant difference in favour of steroid group compared to the placebo group
XXXTriamcinolone acetonide + joint lavage/joint lavage alone	Frias 2004	Pain (0‐10 cm VAS)	P: ns; R:P<0.00001	ITT	Friedman's test	P: no significant between‐group difference, R: significant between‐group difference in favour of joint lavage plus TA at one month; and in favour of joint lavage alone at three months
Triamcinolone acetonide + joint lavage/joint lavage alone	Frias 2004	Crepitation (number of knees with symptom)	P: P value 0.043; R:ns	ITT	Cochran's Q‐test	P: significant difference in favour of joint lavage alone at month three; R: no significant between‐group difference
Triamcinolone acetonide + joint lavage/joint lavage alone	Frias 2004	Function (number of knees with restricted motion)	P: P value 0.042 and 0.011; R: P value 0.05 and 0.02	ITT	Cochran's Q‐test	P: significant between‐group difference at one month (P value 0.042); R: no significant difference at one month (P value 0.05); at three months, p values differ but both P and R result significant between‐group difference in favour of joint lavage alone
Triamcinolone acetonide+Orthovisc/Orthovisc	Ozturk 2005	WOMAC OA Index pain subscale (Likert)	P: p<0.05; R: ns	ITT	Repeated measures ANOVA	P: significant between‐group difference in favour of triamcinolone acetonide plus Orthovisc compared to Orthovisc alone
Triamcinolone acetonide	Ozturk 2005	WOMAC OA Index stiffness subscale	P: ns; R: P values 0.04 at 1‐4 wk, 0.02 at 34 wk, 0.04 at 45‐52 weeks	ITT	Repeated measures ANOVA	P: no statistically significant between‐group difference whereas RevMan statistically significant between‐group difference in favour of triamcinolone acetonide plus Orthovisc compared to Orthovisc alone at three timepointsXXX

Table 19. Discrepancies between RevMan analysis and published reports

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 1. Corticosteroid versus placebo

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Pain: number of patients reporting pain reduction Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

1.1 1 week post injection	1	34	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.25 [0.88, 1.78]
1.2 8 weeks post injection	1	34	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.0 [0.61, 1.64]
2 Number of knees reported with improvement 2 weeks post injection Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

3 Number of knees reported with improvement 2 weeks post injection Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

4 Pain: 0‐100 mm VAS Show forest plot	3		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

4.1 1 week post injection	3	161	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐21.91 [‐29.93, ‐13.89]
4.2 4 weeks post injection	1	53	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐11.20 [‐25.49, 3.09]
4.3 6 weeks post injection	1	84	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐7.10 [‐18.39, 4.19]
4.4 12 weeks post injection	1	53	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐14.20 [‐27.44, ‐0.96]
4.5 24 weeks post injection	1	53	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐7.30 [‐22.61, 8.01]
5 Number of responders (greater than 30% decrease in pain VAS from baseline) Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

5.1 1 week post injection	1	53	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	2.56 [1.26, 5.18]
5.2 4 weeks post injection	1	53	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.96 [0.99, 3.87]
5.3 12 weeks post injection	1	53	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.82 [0.91, 3.65]
5.4 24 weeks post injection	1	53	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	2.24 [0.99, 5.08]
6 Number of responders (greater than 15% decrease in pain VAS) 3 weeks post injection Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

7 Pain: WOMAC pain (0‐100 mm VAS) Show forest plot	1		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

7.1 52 weeks post injection	1	66	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐13.8 [‐26.79, ‐0.81]
7.2 104 weeks post injection	1	66	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐5.20 [‐18.19, 7.79]
8 Pain: at night (0‐100 mm VAS) Show forest plot	1		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

8.1 52 weeks post injection	1	66	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐10.3 [‐22.98, 2.38]
8.2 104 weeks post injection	1	66	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.20 [‐11.48, 13.88]
9 Function: WOMAC physical function (0‐100 mm VAS) Show forest plot	1		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

9.1 52 weeks post injection	1	66	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐6.0 [‐17.77, 5.77]
9.2 104 weeks post injection	1	66	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐4.20 [‐15.97, 7.57]
10 Function: Lequesne Index (0‐24) Show forest plot	1		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

10.1 1 week post injection	1	53	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐2.2 [‐4.87, 0.47]
10.2 4 weeks post injection	1	53	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐2.30 [‐4.67, 0.07]
10.3 12 weeks post injection	1	53	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐1.0 [‐3.32, 1.32]
10.4 24 weeks post injection	1	53	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐1.20 [‐3.58, 1.18]
11 Function: Modified HAQ (0‐9) Show forest plot	1		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

11.1 1 week post injection	1	84	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐0.10 [‐0.96, 0.76]
11.2 6 weeks post injection	1	84	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.30 [‐0.62, 1.22]
12 Function: 50 foot walking time (sec) Show forest plot	1		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

12.1 52 weeks post injection	1	66	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐0.20 [‐1.62, 1.22]
12.2 104 weeks post injection	1	66	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐0.70 [‐2.12, 0.72]
13 Function: walking distance (m) Show forest plot	1		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

13.1 1 week post injection	1	84	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	2.40 [‐4.36, 9.16]
13.2 6 weeks post injection	1	84	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐0.80 [‐7.20, 5.60]
14 Range of motion (degrees) Show forest plot	1		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

14.1 52 weeks post injection	1	66	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐1.30 [‐7.66, 5.06]
14.2 104 weeks post injection	1	66	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	10.40 [4.04, 16.76]
15 Global assessment: number of patients showing improvement Show forest plot	4		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

15.1 1 week post injection	3	158	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.44 [1.13, 1.82]
15.2 3 weeks post injection	1	51	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.91 [0.67, 1.24]
15.3 6 weeks post injection	2	157	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.06 [0.86, 1.31]
15.4 8 weeks post injection	1	51	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.86 [0.60, 1.23]
15.5 6 months post injection	1	68	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.94 [0.81, 1.09]
16 Global assessment: number of patients preferring treatment Show forest plot	3		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

17 Patient global assessment (0‐100 mm VAS) Show forest plot	2		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

17.1 1 week post injection	1	53	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐15.5 [‐32.32, 1.32]
17.2 4 weeks post injection	1	53	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐12.90 [‐29.51, 3.71]
17.3 12 weeks post injection	1	53	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐9.20 [‐24.18, 5.78]
17.4 24 weeks post injection	1	53	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐3.70 [‐20.47, 13.07]
17.5 52 weeks post injection	1	66	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐0.40 [‐14.16, 13.36]
17.6 104 weeks post injection	1	66	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐1.10 [‐14.86, 12.66]
18 WOMAC stiffness (0‐100 mm VAS) Show forest plot	1		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

18.1 52 weeks post injection	1	66	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐6.70 [‐22.70, 9.30]
18.2 104 weeks post injection	1	66	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐8.60 [‐24.60, 7.40]
19 WOMAC total (0‐100 mm VAS) Show forest plot	1		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

19.1 52 weeks post injection	1	66	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐7.80 [‐20.28, 4.68]
19.2 104 weeks post injection	1	66	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐4.60 [‐17.08, 7.88]
20 Joint space width (mm) Show forest plot	1		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

20.1 1 year post injection	1	66	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.14 [‐2.90, 3.18]
20.2 2 years post injection	1	66	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.16 [‐2.23, 2.55]
21 Safety: total withdrawals overall Show forest plot	2		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

22 Safety: withdrawals due to lack of efficacy Show forest plot	2		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

23 Safety: withdrawals due to adverse events	0		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only
24 Safety: number of patients experiencing post injection flare Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

25 Safety: number of patients reporting local discomfort Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

Comparison 1. Corticosteroid versus placebo

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 2. Corticosteroid verus joint lavage

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Pain: number of responders (greater than 30% reduction in pain VAS from baseline) Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

1.1 1 week post injection	1	46	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.34 [0.79, 2.30]
1.2 4 weeks post injection	1	46	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.18 [0.67, 2.07]
1.3 12 weeks post injection	1	46	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.09 [0.61, 1.96]
1.4 24 weeks post injection	1	46	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.01 [0.55, 1.85]
2 Pain (0‐100 mm VAS) Show forest plot	1		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

2.1 1 week post injection	1	46	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐12.0 [‐26.66, 2.66]
2.2 4 weeks post injection	1	46	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐5.90 [‐21.82, 10.02]
2.3 12 weeks post injection	1	46	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	4.5 [‐11.34, 20.34]
2.4 24 weeks post injection	1	46	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	3.10 [‐13.48, 19.68]
3 Pain on movement: number of responders (at least 30% reduction) Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

3.1 2 weeks post injection	1	71	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.25 [0.86, 1.83]
3.2 4 weeks post injection	1	71	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.14 [0.79, 1.66]
3.3 8 weeks post injection	1	71	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.11 [0.74, 1.66]
3.4 12 weeks post injection	1	71	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.87 [0.55, 1.37]
3.5 24 weeks post injection	1	71	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.93 [0.53, 1.63]
4 Pain (0‐10 cm VAS) Show forest plot	1		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

4.1 One month post injection	1	299	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.20 [0.12, 0.28]
4.2 Three months post injection	1	299	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐0.30 [‐0.38, ‐0.22]
5 Pain: number of knees with spontaneous pain Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

5.1 One month post injection	1	217	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.40 [0.44, 4.48]
5.2 Three months post injection	1	264	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.99 [0.42, 2.31]
6 Pain: number of knees with pain on active motion Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

6.1 One month post injection	1	219	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.86 [0.51, 1.45]
6.2 Three months post injection	1	249	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.76 [0.53, 1.09]
7 Pain: number of knees with pain on passive motion Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

7.1 One month post injection	1	212	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	2.15 [0.87, 5.32]
7.2 Three months post injection	1	252	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.24 [0.68, 2.28]
8 Pain: number of knees with pain on pressue Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

8.1 One month post injection	1	220	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.22 [0.68, 2.19]
8.2 Three months post injection	1	251	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.86 [0.58, 1.27]
9 Function: number of knees with restricted motion Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

9.1 One month post injection	1	217	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.78 [0.60, 1.00]
9.2 Three months post injection	1	249	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.73 [0.56, 0.94]
10 Function: Lequesne Index (0‐24) Show forest plot	1		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

10.1 1 week post injection	1	46	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐0.90 [‐3.45, 1.65]
10.2 4 weeks post injection	1	46	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐0.30 [‐2.89, 2.29]
10.3 12 weeks post injection	1	46	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.0 [‐1.51, 3.51]
10.4 24 weeks post injection	1	46	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.60 [‐2.11, 3.31]
11 OARSI responsder criteria (20% decrease in pain VAS and >10 mm and/or improved function >20% and 10 units) Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

11.1 2 weeks post injection	1	71	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.45 [0.93, 2.24]
11.2 4 weeks post injection	1	71	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.74 [1.00, 3.02]
11.3 8 weeks post injection	1	71	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.66 [0.95, 2.91]
11.4 12 weeks post injection	1	71	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.56 [0.84, 2.90]
11.5 24 weeks post injection	1	71	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.98 [0.93, 4.23]
12 Crepitation: number of knees with symptom Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

12.1 One month post injection	1	218	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.98 [0.93, 1.03]
12.2 Three months post injection	1	248	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.96 [0.90, 1.01]
13 Global assessment (0‐100 mm VAS) Show forest plot	1		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

13.1 1 week post injection	1	46	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐9.90 [‐27.27, 7.47]
13.2 4 weeks post injection	1	46	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐1.10 [‐18.85, 16.65]
13.3 12 weeks post injection	1	46	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	6.90 [‐10.76, 24.56]
13.4 24 weeks post injection	1	46	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	8.20 [‐10.22, 26.62]
14 Effusion: number of knees with effusion Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

14.1 One month post injection	1	225	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.5 [0.22, 1.13]
14.2 Three months post injection	1	249	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.68 [0.39, 1.20]
15 Effusion: number of patients with effusion Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

15.1 2 weeks post injection	1	71	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.19 [0.04, 0.83]
15.2 4 weeks post injection	1	71	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.47 [0.20, 1.14]
15.3 8 weeks post injection	1	71	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.47 [0.20, 1.14]
15.4 12 weeks post injection	1	71	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.87 [0.39, 1.93]
15.5 24 weeks post injection	1	71	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.72 [0.36, 1.45]
16 Safety: total withdrawals overall Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

17 Safety: withdrawals due to lack of efficacy Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

18 Safety: number of patients reporting local discomfort Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

Comparison 2. Corticosteroid verus joint lavage

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 3. Methylprednisolone acetate versus Hyalgan

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Spontaneous pain intensity (0‐100 mm VAS) Show forest plot	3		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

1.1 1 to 4 weeks post injection	3	170	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐4.90 [‐9.91, 0.10]
1.2 5 to 13 weeks post injection	3	170	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐7.73 [‐12.81, ‐2.64]
1.3 45 to 52 weeks post injection	1	32	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	2.5 [‐14.98, 19.98]
2 Number of joints with moderate or severe pain under load Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

2.1 1 to 4 weeks post injection	1	40	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.0 [0.47, 2.14]
2.2 5 to 13 weeks post injection	1	40	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.86 [0.35, 2.10]
2.3 45 to 52 weeks post injection	1	32	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.82 [0.46, 1.49]
3 Number of patients with moderate or severe pain under load Show forest plot	2		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

3.1 1 to 4 weeks post injection	2	130	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.95 [0.71, 1.27]
3.2 5 to 13 weeks post injection	2	129	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.62 [0.45, 0.85]
4 Number of joints with moderate or severe walking pain Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

4.1 1 to 4 weeks post injection	1	40	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.22 [0.65, 2.29]
4.2 5 to 13 weeks post injection	1	40	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.8 [0.40, 1.60]
4.3 45 to 52 weeks post injection	1	32	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.04 [0.67, 1.60]
5 Number of patients with at least moderate or greater night pain Show forest plot	2		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

5.1 1 to 4 weeks post injection	2	130	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.2 [0.38, 3.80]
5.2 5 to 13 weeks post injection	2	129	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.14 [0.02, 1.13]
6 Number of patients with moderate or greater rest pain Show forest plot	2		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

6.1 1 to 4 weeks post injection	2	130	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.68 [0.38, 1.24]
6.2 5 to 13 weeks post injection	2	129	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.39 [0.19, 0.78]
7 Function: range of motion (flexion in degrees) Show forest plot	2		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

7.1 1 to 4 weeks post injection	2	130	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	5.93 [0.71, 11.14]
7.2 5 to 13 weeks post injection	2	130	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	5.41 [0.54, 10.28]
7.3 45 to 52 weeks post injection	1	32	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.5 [‐12.92, 15.92]
8 Patient global (number of patients very good/good, excellent/good) Show forest plot	3		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

8.1 1 to 4 weeks post injection	3	213	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.94 [0.75, 1.18]
8.2 5 to 13 weeks post injection	2	130	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.86 [1.26, 2.75]
8.3 14 to 26 weeks post injection	1	70	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.05 [0.81, 1.36]
9 Safety: total withdrawals overall Show forest plot	4		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

9.1 1 to 4 weeks post injection	1	99	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.54 [0.21, 1.38]
9.2 5 to 13 weeks post injection	2	130	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	3.0 [0.13, 71.74]
9.3 14 to 26 weeks post injection	1	99	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.81 [0.67, 4.91]
9.4 45 to 52 weeks post injection	1	40	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.67 [0.46, 6.06]
10 Safety: withdrawals due to lack of efficacy Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

10.1 5 to 13 weeks post injection	1	90	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	3.0 [0.13, 71.74]
11 Safety: withdrawals due to adverse events Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

11.1 After first injection	1	99	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.30 [0.01, 7.24]
12 Safety: number of patients with local or systemic reactions Show forest plot	2		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

12.1 5 to 13 weeks post injection	2	130	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	3.0 [0.13, 71.74]
13 Safety: number of joints with local reactions but continued in trial Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

13.1 1 to 4 weeks post injection	1	40	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.33 [0.34, 5.21]

Comparison 3. Methylprednisolone acetate versus Hyalgan

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 4. Triamcinolone hexacetonide versus Hyalgan

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Pain on nominated activity (0‐100 mm VAS) Show forest plot	1		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

1.1 End of treatment (Week 4)	1	56	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐0.20 [‐17.39, 16.99]
1.2 14 to 26 weeks post injection	1	20	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐10.0 [‐31.83, 11.83]
2 Pain at rest (0‐100 mm VAS) Show forest plot	1		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

2.1 End of treatment (Week 4)	1	56	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐0.70 [‐18.17, 16.77]
2.2 14 to 26 weeks post injection	1	20	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐20.40 [‐43.92, 3.12]
3 Pain at night (0‐100 mm VAS) Show forest plot	1		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

3.1 End of treatment (Week 4)	1	56	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐7.10 [‐24.30, 10.10]
3.2 14 to 26 weeks post injection	1	20	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐20.70 [‐37.74, ‐3.66]
4 Safety: total withdrawals overall Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

4.1 End of treatment (Week 4)	1	63	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.73 [0.18, 2.99]
4.2 14 to 26 weeks post injection	1	63	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.80 [0.56, 1.14]
5 Safety: withdrawals due to lack of efficacy Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

5.1 End of treatment (Week 4)	1	63	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	4.85 [0.24, 97.11]
5.2 14 to 26 weeks post injection	1	63	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.89 [0.49, 1.65]
6 Safety: wIthdrawals due to adverse events Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

6.1 End of treatment (Week 4)	1	63	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.97 [0.06, 14.82]
6.2 14 to 26 weeks post injection	1	63	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.78 [0.23, 2.62]

Comparison 4. Triamcinolone hexacetonide versus Hyalgan

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 5. Betamethasone versus hylan G‐F 20

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Safety: total withdrawals overall Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

2 Safety: withdrawals due to lack of efficacy Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

3 Safety: withdrawals due to acute local reaction Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

Comparison 5. Betamethasone versus hylan G‐F 20

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 6. Triamcinolone hexacetonide versus hylan G‐F 20

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 WOMAC pain walking on a flat surface (question 1: 0‐4 Likert) Show forest plot	1		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

1.1 5 to 13 weeks post injection	1	215	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐0.40 [‐0.65, ‐0.15]
1.2 14 to 26 weeks post injection	1	215	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐0.40 [‐0.68, ‐0.12]
2 WOMAC physical function subscale (0‐68 Likert) Show forest plot	1		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

2.1 5 to 13 weeks post injection	1	215	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐5.0 [‐8.86, ‐1.14]
2.2 14 to 26 weeks post injection	1	215	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐5.20 [‐9.10, ‐1.30]
3 WOMAC total score (0‐96 Likert) Show forest plot	1		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

3.1 5 to 13 weeks post injection	1	215	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐7.40 [‐12.74, ‐2.06]
3.2 14 to 26 weeks post injection	1	215	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐7.30 [‐12.76, ‐1.84]
4 Patient global overall assessment (0‐100 mm VAS) Show forest plot	1		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

4.1 5 to 13 weeks post injection	1	215	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐13.40 [‐20.03, ‐6.77]
4.2 14 to 26 weeks post injection	1	215	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐15.10 [‐22.17, ‐8.03]
5 Number of responders (greater than or equal to one category on WOMAC pain question 1) Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

5.1 1 to 4 weeks post injection	1	215	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.21 [0.96, 1.53]
5.2 5 to 13 weeks post injection	1	215	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.44 [1.09, 1.90]
5.3 14 to 26 weeks post injection	1	215	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.44 [1.00, 2.09]
6 Analgesic usage Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

6.1 From week 0 to prior to week 12	1	215	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.01 [0.97, 1.06]
6.2 From week 12 prior to week 26	1	153	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.84 [0.64, 1.11]
7 Safety: total withdrawals overall Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

8 Safety: wIthdrawals due to adverse event Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

9 Safety: withdrawals due to lack of efficacy Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

Comparison 6. Triamcinolone hexacetonide versus hylan G‐F 20

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 7. Betamethasone versus Orthovisc

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 WOMAC function (17‐85 Likert) Show forest plot	1		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

1.1 1 to 4 weeks post injection	1	40	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	3.00 [‐2.39, 8.39]
1.2 5 to 13 weeks post injection	1	40	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐9.0 [‐14.15, ‐3.85]
2 Flexion (degrees) Show forest plot	1		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

2.1 1 to 4 weeks post injection	1	40	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐4.90 [‐14.69, 4.89]
2.2 5 to 13 weeks post injection	1	40	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐7.05 [‐15.48, 1.38]
3 Patient global assessment: number of patients good or very good Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

3.1 1 to 4 weeks post injection	1	40	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.83 [0.47, 1.47]
3.2 5 to 13 weeks post injection	1	40	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.88 [1.04, 3.39]
4 Safety: total withdrawals overall Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

5 Safety: withdrawals due to adverse events Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

6 Safety: number of patients with local adverse events Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

7 Safety: number of patients with systemic adverse events Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

Comparison 7. Betamethasone versus Orthovisc

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 8. 6‐Methylprednisolone acetate versus Orthovisc

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Pain on weight bearing (0‐100 mm VAS) Show forest plot	1		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

1.1 1 to 4 weeks post injection	1	55	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	5.03 [‐4.94, 15.00]
1.2 5 to 13 weeks post injection	1	55	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐15.64 [‐24.51, ‐6.77]
1.3 14 to 26 weeks post injection	1	55	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐15.40 [‐25.91, ‐4.89]
2 Pain at rest (0‐100 mm VAS) Show forest plot	1		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

2.1 1 to 4 weeks post injection	1	55	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	3.53 [‐2.09, 9.15]
2.2 5 to 13 weeks post injection	1	55	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐7.70 [‐13.50, ‐1.90]
2.3 14 to 26 weeks post injection	1	55	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐2.90 [‐9.47, 3.67]
3 Pain on walking (0‐100 mm VAS) Show forest plot	1		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

3.1 1 to 4 weeks post injection	1	55	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐0.40 [‐11.46, 10.66]
3.2 5 to 13 weeks post injection	1	55	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐18.43 [‐29.19, ‐7.67]
3.3 14 to 26 weeks post injection	1	55	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐14.90 [‐25.91, ‐3.89]
4 Lequesne Index (0‐24) Show forest plot	1		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

4.1 1 to 4 weeks post injection	1	55	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐0.10 [‐0.91, 0.71]
4.2 5 to 13 weeks post injection	1	55	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐1.40 [‐2.13, ‐0.67]
4.3 14 to 26 weeks post injection	1	55	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐1.14 [‐2.16, ‐0.12]
5 Flexion (active range in degrees) Show forest plot	1		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

5.1 1 to 4 weeks post injection	1	55	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	2.16 [‐2.58, 6.90]
5.2 5 to 13 weeks post injection	1	55	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	2.36 [‐1.82, 6.54]
5.3 14 to 26 weeks post injection	1	55	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	5.0 [0.19, 9.81]
6 Safety: total withdrawals overall Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

7 Safety: number of patients withdrawn due to increased pain Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

8 Safety: number of patients reporting musculoskeletal adverse events Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

9 Safety: number of patients reporting skin adverse events Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

10 Safety: number of patients reporting gastrointestinal adverse events Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

11 Safety: number of patients reporting general adverse events Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

12 Safety: number of patients reporting knee pain after injection Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

Comparison 8. 6‐Methylprednisolone acetate versus Orthovisc

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 9. Triamcinolone acetonide plus Orthovisc versus Orthovisc

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Pain (0‐100 mm VAS) Show forest plot	1		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

1.1 1 to 4 weeks post injection	1	40	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	13.0 [3.77, 22.23]
1.2 5 to 13 weeks post injection	1	40	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐2.0 [‐11.36, 7.36]
1.3 14 to 26 weeks post injection	1	40	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	5.0 [‐3.99, 13.99]
1.4 34 weeks post injection	1	40	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	2.0 [‐8.62, 12.62]
1.5 45 to 52 weeks post injection	1	40	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐0.60 [‐11.61, 10.41]
2 WOMAC pain (0‐20 Likert) Show forest plot	1		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

2.1 1 to 4 weeks post injection	1	40	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.80 [‐1.64, 3.24]
2.2 5 to 13 weeks post injection	1	40	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐1.10 [‐3.54, 1.34]
2.3 14 to 26 weeks post injection	1	40	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐1.20 [‐4.13, 1.73]
2.4 34 weeks post injection	1	40	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐0.10 [‐2.99, 2.79]
2.5 45 to 52 weeks post injection	1	40	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.10 [‐3.03, 3.23]
3 WOMAC physical function (0‐68 Likert) Show forest plot	1		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

3.1 1 to 4 weeks post injection	1	40	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	5.0 [‐3.41, 13.41]
3.2 5 to 13 weeks post injection	1	40	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	6.80 [‐0.62, 14.22]
3.3 14 to 26 weeks post injection	1	40	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	5.30 [‐1.98, 12.58]
3.4 34 weeks post injection	1	40	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	4.30 [‐1.73, 10.33]
3.5 45 to 52 weeks post injection	1	40	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	3.10 [‐4.32, 10.52]
4 50 foot walking time (seconds) Show forest plot	1		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

4.1 1 to 4 weeks post injection	1	40	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.10 [‐3.06, 3.26]
4.2 5 to 13 weeks post injection	1	40	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.20 [‐3.16, 3.56]
4.3 14 to 26 weeks post injection	1	40	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐0.20 [‐3.32, 2.92]
4.4 34 weeks post injection	1	40	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐1.0 [‐2.95, 0.95]
4.5 45 to 52 weeks post injection	1	40	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐0.20 [‐3.50, 3.10]
5 Range of motion (degrees) Show forest plot	1		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

5.1 1 to 4 weeks post injection	1	40	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐3.0 [‐10.55, 4.55]
5.2 5 to 13 weeks post injection	1	40	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐4.90 [‐12.00, 2.20]
5.3 14 to 26 weeks post injection	1	40	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐4.20 [‐11.66, 3.26]
5.4 34 weeks post injection	1	40	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐4.30 [‐12.53, 3.93]
5.5 45 to 52 weeks post injection	1	40	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐4.5 [‐12.50, 3.50]
6 WOMAC stiffness (0‐8 Likert) Show forest plot	1		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

6.1 1 to 4 weeks post injection	1	40	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.80 [0.02, 1.58]
6.2 5 to 13 weeks post injection	1	40	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.20 [‐0.59, 0.99]
6.3 14 to 26 weeks post injection	1	40	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.40 [‐0.23, 1.03]
6.4 34 weeks post injection	1	40	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.80 [0.12, 1.48]
6.5 45 to 52 weeks post injection	1	40	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.80 [0.06, 1.54]
7 WOMAC total score (0‐96 Likert) Show forest plot	1		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

7.1 1 to 4 weeks post injection	1	40	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	6.80 [‐3.31, 16.91]
7.2 5 to 13 weeks post injection	1	40	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	5.90 [‐3.58, 15.38]
7.3 14 to 26 weeks post injection	1	40	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	4.5 [‐4.84, 13.84]
7.4 34 weeks post injection	1	40	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	4.90 [‐2.99, 12.79]
7.5 45 to 52 weeks post injection	1	40	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	3.90 [‐5.24, 13.04]
8 Safety: total withdrawals overall Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

9 Safety: withdrawals due to lack of efficacy Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

10 Safety: number of patients reporting adverse events (local reactions) Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

Comparison 9. Triamcinolone acetonide plus Orthovisc versus Orthovisc

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 10. Corticosteroid versus corticosteroid

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Pain: number of patients reporting pain reduction Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

1.1 1 week post injection	1	42	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.78 [1.03, 3.08]
1.2 2 weeks post injection	1	42	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.8 [1.11, 2.91]
1.3 4 weeks post injection	1	42	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	2.0 [1.10, 3.63]
2 Pain: number of knees reported with improvement 2 weeks post injection Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

3 Pain: during movement (0‐3) Show forest plot	1		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

3.1 1 week post injection	1	24	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐0.20 [‐0.99, 0.59]
3.2 2 weeks post injection (16 days)	1	24	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.10 [‐0.43, 0.63]
3.3 3 weeks post injection	1	24	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.40 [‐0.34, 1.14]
3.4 4 weeks post injection	1	24	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.20 [‐0.52, 0.92]
4 Pain: at rest (0‐3) Show forest plot	1		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

4.1 1 week post injection	1	24	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐0.60 [‐1.37, 0.17]
4.2 2 weeks post injection (16 days)	1	24	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐0.20 [‐0.53, 0.13]
4.3 3 weeks post injection	1	24	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [‐0.44, 0.44]
4.4 4 weeks post injection	1	24	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐0.20 [‐0.63, 0.23]
5 Pain: on pressure (0‐3) Show forest plot	1		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

5.1 1 week post injection	1	24	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐0.5 [‐1.13, 0.13]
5.2 2 weeks post injection (16 days)	1	24	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [‐0.40, 0.40]
5.3 3 weeks post injection	1	24	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐0.10 [‐0.59, 0.39]
5.4 4 weeks post injection	1	24	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.20 [‐0.36, 0.76]
6 Pain (0‐100 mm VAS) Show forest plot	1		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

6.1 3 weeks post injection	1	57	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐19.6 [‐33.50, ‐5.70]
6.2 8 weeks post injection	1	57	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	10.30 [‐3.99, 24.59]
7 Lequesne Index Show forest plot	1		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

7.1 3 weeks post injection	1	57	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐1.10 [‐3.57, 1.37]
7.2 8 weeks post injection	1	57	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.20 [‐1.27, 3.67]
8 Function: range of motion (flexion 4 weeks post injection) Show forest plot	1		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

9 Stair climb time (seconds) Show forest plot	1		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

9.1 3 weeks post injection	1	57	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.80 [‐10.23, 11.83]
9.2 8 weeks post injection	1	57	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	8.30 [‐2.81, 19.41]
10 Index of disease activity (0‐10) Show forest plot	1		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

10.1 1 week post injection	1	24	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐0.60 [‐1.69, 0.49]
10.2 2 weeks post injection (16 days)	1	24	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐0.40 [‐1.48, 0.68]
10.3 3 weeks post injection	1	24	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐0.10 [‐1.28, 1.08]
10.4 4 weeks post injection	1	24	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐0.40 [‐1.77, 0.97]
11 Global assessment: number of patients showing improvement 1 week post injection Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

12 Global assessment: number of patients improved 1 week post injection Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

13 Global assessment: number of patients reporting improvement from baseline Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

13.1 3 weeks post injection	1	57	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.05 [0.84, 1.32]
13.2 8 weeks post injection	1	57	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.80 [0.51, 1.26]
14 Global assessment: number of knees excellent or good as assessed by physician at 20 weeks post injection Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

15 Safety: number of patients reporting local pain after injection (triamcinolone hexacetonide versus betamethaso Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

16 Safety: number of patients reporting local pain after injection (hydrocortisone acetate vs hydrocortisone TBA) Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

17 Safety: number of adverse events recorded Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

Comparison 10. Corticosteroid versus corticosteroid

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

The Cochrane Library

Scolaris Language Selector Scolaris Language Selector

Idioma de la Revisión Cochrane

Idioma de la web

Scolaris Content Language Banner Portlet Scolaris Content Language Banner Portlet

Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Temas

Scolaris Language Selector Scolaris Language Selector

Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Instituciones a las que se accedió previamente

Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Usuarios institucionales

Instituciones a las que se accedió previamente

Otras opciones de acceso

	Idioma de la Revisión Cochrane Escoja su idioma de preferencia para las revisiones Cochrane y otros contenidos. Las secciones sin una traducción aparecerán en inglés.

	Idioma de la web Escoja su idioma de preferencia para la web de la Biblioteca Cochrane.

Idioma de la Revisión Cochrane

Idioma de la web

Contenido relacionado

Revisiones y protocolos relacionados

Temas

Copiar o descargar referencia

Idioma de la Revisión Cochrane

Idioma de la web

Instituciones a las que se accedió previamente

Usuarios institucionales

Instituciones a las que se accedió previamente

Otras opciones de acceso