Copyright
©2014 Baishideng Publishing Group Inc.
World J Meta-Anal. Aug 26, 2014; 2(3): 78-90
Published online Aug 26, 2014. doi: 10.13105/wjma.v2.i3.78
Published online Aug 26, 2014. doi: 10.13105/wjma.v2.i3.78
Table 5 Summary of findings
Outcomes | Difference1 in ultrasound group mean relative to the control group mean (95%CI) | No of Participants and knees (studies) | Strength of the body of evidence2 | Inconsistency (I2) | Outcome specific risk of bias |
Pain VAS; NRS Follow-up: 2-8 wk | 0.39 standard deviations lower [-0.70-(-0.08)] | 281 (5 studies) | Low | 36% | High risk of bias of the included studies, imprecision due to small sample size and wide CI |
Self-reported physical function WOMAC® LK 3.1 Physical function; Follow-up: 2-8 wk | 2.49 points lower (-0.55-0.14) | 130 (3 studies) | Very low | 0% | High risk of bias of the included studies, imprecision due to very small sample size and wide CI |
Walking performance 50 m walk speed (s); 20 m walk speed (s); 6MWT (m) Follow-up: 2-8 wks | 0.11 standard deviations lower (-0.59-0.37) | 212 (4 studies) | Very low | 64% | High risk of bias in the included studies, imprecision due to small sample size and wide CI, inconsistent |
- Citation: MacIntyre NJ, Negm A, Loyola-Sánchez A, Bhandari M. Efficacy of therapeutic ultrasound vs sham ultrasound on pain and physical function in people with knee osteoarthritis: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. World J Meta-Anal 2014; 2(3): 78-90
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/2308-3840/full/v2/i3/78.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.13105/wjma.v2.i3.78