Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Flow chart.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 1

Flow chart.

Methodological characteristics and source of funding of the included trial. (+) indicates low risk of bias, (?) unclear and (‐) a high risk of bias on a specific item.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 2

Methodological characteristics and source of funding of the included trial. (+) indicates low risk of bias, (?) unclear and (‐) a high risk of bias on a specific item.

Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 3

Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.

Comparison 1 Doxycycline versus placebo, Outcome 1 Pain.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Doxycycline versus placebo, Outcome 1 Pain.

Comparison 1 Doxycycline versus placebo, Outcome 2 Physical function.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 Doxycycline versus placebo, Outcome 2 Physical function.

Comparison 1 Doxycycline versus placebo, Outcome 3 Minimum joint space width.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 Doxycycline versus placebo, Outcome 3 Minimum joint space width.

Comparison 1 Doxycycline versus placebo, Outcome 4 Number of patients withdrawn due to adverse events.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1 Doxycycline versus placebo, Outcome 4 Number of patients withdrawn due to adverse events.

Comparison 1 Doxycycline versus placebo, Outcome 5 Number of patients experiencing any adverse event.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.5

Comparison 1 Doxycycline versus placebo, Outcome 5 Number of patients experiencing any adverse event.

Comparison 1 Doxycycline versus placebo, Outcome 6 Number of patients experiencing any serious adverse events.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.6

Comparison 1 Doxycycline versus placebo, Outcome 6 Number of patients experiencing any serious adverse events.

Doxycycline compared with placebo for osteoarthritis of the knee or hip

Participant or population: participants with osteoarthritis of the knee or hip

Settings: clinical research centres

Intervention: doxycycline

Comparison: placebo

Outcomes

Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

No of participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Assumed risk1

Corresponding risk

Placebo

Doxycycline

Pain

10‐cm VAS scale

(median follow‐up: 18 months)

‐1.8 cm pain1
on 10‐cm VAS2

29% improvement3

‐1.9 cm pain

(Δ ‐0.1 cm, ‐0.6 to +0.3 cm)2

32% improvement3

(Δ 3%, ‐5% to 10%)

ES ‐0.05 (‐0.22 to 0.13)

524
(2)

+++O
moderate4

Little evidence of beneficial effect (NNTB: not statistically significant)

Function

WOMAC function (range 0 to 10)

(median follow‐up: 18 months)

‐1.2 units on WOMAC1
(range 0 to 10)5

21% improvement6

‐1.4 units on WOMAC5

(Δ ‐0.2, ‐0.5 to +0.2)5

24% improvement6

(Δ 3%, ‐3% to 10%)

ES ‐0.07 (‐0.25 to 0.1)

517
(2)

+++O
moderate4

Little evidence of beneficial effect (NNTB: not statistically significant)

Minimum joint space width

(follow‐up: 30 months)

‐45 mm change

‐30 mm change

(Δ 15 mm, 2 to 28 mm)

361
(1)

+++O
moderate7

No reasonable assumption could be made for the calculation of NNTB

Number of participants experiencing any adverse event

(follow‐up: 6 months)

150 per 10008

204 per 1000

(162 to 258)

RR 1.36 (1.08 to 1.72)

232

(1)

++OO

low9

NNTH 19 (95% CI 9 to 83)

Number of participants withdrawn due to adverse events

(median follow‐up: 18 months)

17 per 10008

39 per 1000

(18 to 83)

RR 2.28 (1.06 to 4.90)

663
(2)

++OO

low9

NNTH 46 (95% CI 15 to 980)

Number of participants experiencing any serious adverse event

(median follow‐up: 18 months)

4 per 1000 8

4 per 1000

(3 to 7)

RR 1.07 (0.68 to 1.68)

663
(2)

++OO

low9

Little evidence of harmful effect (NNTH: not statistically significant)

*The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). No transformations were performed for minimum joint space width.

CI: confidence interval; ES: effect size; RR: risk ratio; GRADE: GRADE Working Group grades of evidence (see explanations); NNTB: number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome; NNTH: number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome; VAS: visual analogue scale.

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality (++++): Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.
Moderate quality (+++O): Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.
Low quality (++OO): Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.
Very low quality (+OOO): We are very uncertain about the estimate.

1 Median reduction as observed across placebo groups in large osteoarthritis trials (see Methods section, Nuesch 2009c).
2 Effect sizes were back‐transformed onto a 10‐cm VAS on the basis of a typical pooled SD of 2.5 cm in large trials that assessed pain using a VAS and expressed as change based on an assumed standardised reduction of 0.72 standard deviation units in the control group.

3 Percentage improvement was calculated based on median observed pain at baseline across control groups of large osteoarthritis trials of 6.1 cm on 10 cm VAS (Nuesch 2009c).

4 Downgraded (1 level) because it is unclear whether one of the two studies had a proper concealment of allocation, in both studies the analyses were not done according to the intention‐to‐treat principle, and one of the two studies had a restricted population of obese women, which hampers directness.

5 Effect sizes were back‐transformed onto a standardised WOMAC disability score ranging from 0 to 10 on the basis of a typical pooled SD of 2.1 in trials that assessed function using WOMAC disability scores and expressed as change based on an assumed standardised reduction of 0.58 standard deviation units in the control group.

6 Percentage of improvement was calculated based on median observed WOMAC function scores at baseline across control groups of large osteoarthritis trials of 5.6 units (Nuesch 2009c).

7 Downgraded (1 level) because it is unclear whether the study had a proper concealment of allocation, and because the study had a restricted population of obese women, which hampers directness.

8 Median control risk across placebo groups in large osteoarthritis trials (see Methods section, Nuesch 2009c).

9 Downgraded (2 levels) because it is unclear whether one of the two studies had a proper concealment of allocation, estimates are imprecise with confidence intervals including negligible and appreciable effects, and one of the two studies had a restricted population of obese women, which hampers directness.

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 1. Doxycycline versus placebo

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Pain Show forest plot

2

524

Std. Mean Difference (Random, 95% CI)

‐0.05 [‐0.22, 0.13]

2 Physical function Show forest plot

2

517

Std. Mean Difference (Random, 95% CI)

‐0.07 [‐0.25, 0.10]

3 Minimum joint space width Show forest plot

1

361

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.15 [‐0.28, ‐0.02]

4 Number of patients withdrawn due to adverse events Show forest plot

2

663

Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)

2.28 [1.06, 4.90]

5 Number of patients experiencing any adverse event Show forest plot

1

232

Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)

1.36 [1.08, 1.72]

6 Number of patients experiencing any serious adverse events Show forest plot

2

663

Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)

1.07 [0.68, 1.68]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 1. Doxycycline versus placebo