Literature DB >> 27616273

Intra-articular Hyaluronic Acid in Treating Knee Osteoarthritis: a PRISMA-Compliant Systematic Review of Overlapping Meta-analysis.

Dan Xing1, Bin Wang1, Qiang Liu1, Yan Ke1, Yuankun Xu1, Zhichang Li1, Jianhao Lin1.   

Abstract

Numerous meta-analyses have been conducted aiming to compare hyaluronic acid (HA) and placebo in treating knee osteoarthritis (OA). Nevertheless, the conclusions of these meta-analyses are not in consistency. The purpose of the present study was to perform a systematic review of overlapping meta-analyses investigating the efficacy and safety of HA for Knee OA and to provide treatment recommendations through the best evidence. A systematic review was conducted based on the PRISMA guidelines. The meta-analyses and/or systematic reviews that compared HA and placebo for knee OA were identified. AMSTAR instrument was used to evaluate the methodological quality of individual study. The information of heterogeneity within each variable was fetched for the individual studies. Which meta-analyses can provide best evidence was determined according to Jadad algorithm. Twelve meta-analyses met the eligibility requirements. The Jadad decision making tool suggests that the highest quality review should be selected. As a result, a high-quality Cochrane review was included. The present systematic review of overlapping meta-analyses demonstrates that HA is an effective intervention in treating knee OA without increased risk of adverse events. Therefore, the present conclusions may help decision makers interpret and choose among discordant meta-analyses.

Entities:  

Mesh：

Substances：

Year:  2016        PMID： 27616273      PMCID： PMC5018721          DOI： 10.1038/srep32790

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Sci Rep        ISSN： 2045-2322            Impact factor:   4.379


Osteoarthritis (OA) is a common degenerative disorder with rising prevalence. It leads to cause of disability among the older people123. In epidemiology, half of the world’s population aged 65 years or older has OA, which is the most prevalent disorder of articulating joints in humans. Knee OA is the most common type of OA. The symptoms of knee OA is characterized by pain and disability in joints. In pathologically, the following features are in knee joints: damage of articular cartilage at weight-bearing areas, change in subchondral bone, inflammation in synovitis, osteophyte formation, cyst formation and thickening of joint capsule and loss of joint space4. As some evidence showed, the significant risk factors for this excess mortality in OA included walking disability and cardiovascular disorder5. Thus, more attention should be paid to alleviation of pain and improvement of joint function in OA patients. Hyaluronic acid (HA) is, as an integral component of synovial fluid, often used in clinical practice for treating knee OA. HA is regarded as a joint lubricant during shear stress and as a shock absorber during compressive stress. In the development of knee OA, a marked reduction in concentration and molecular weight of endogenous HA ultimately leads to reduced viscoelastic properties of synovial fluid and induction of proinflammatory pathways6. Therefore, the purpose of intra-articular injection of exogenous HA is to replace this OA-induced deficit and stimulate production of endogenous HA7. HA may alleviate symptoms of knee OA via multiple pathways including inhibition of chondrodegradative enzymes and inflammatory processes, stimulation of chondrocyte metabolism, and synthesis of articular cartilage matrix components8. Although numerous meta-analyses have been conducted to determine the safety and efficacy of HA injections for knee OA, they showed different results in their studies9101112. In the recent guideline in treating Knee OA, AAOS reported that HA is not recommended in the treatment of Knee OA13. However, Altman et al.14 investigated ten guidelines regarding the use of HA for the treatment of knee OA and reported that the recommendations were highly inconsistent as a result of the variability in guideline methodology. Thus, the inconsistent recommendations make it difficult for clinical professionals to determine its appropriateness when treating knee OA. The purpose of the present study is to perform a systematic review of overlapping meta-analyses determining the clinical effects of HA in treating Knee OA, to evaluate the mythological quality of included individual meta-analyses, and to take best evidence through the currently inconsistent evidence.

Materials and Methods

Search strategy

The present systematic review was conducted following the guideline of PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis) statement15. PRISMA statement was used to guarantee high-quality reporting of systematic reviews or meta-analyses16. Electronic databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane library were searched for all meta-analysis or systematic review published through Nov 2015. The following MeSH items or free words were taken: osteoarthritis, knee, meta-analysis, systematic review, and hyaluronic acid. The references of searched studies were also reviewed to explore other meta-analyses or systematic reviews. No restrictions were made on the publication language.

Inclusive and exclusive criteria

Studies were considered eligible for inclusion if they met the following criteria: (1) Meta-analyses or systematic reviews only including randomized controlled trial (RCT); (2) Meta-analyses or systematic reviews comparing HA with placebo in treating knee OA; (3) Meta-analyses or systematic reviews reported at least one variable (such as pain, function, and safety). Exclusion criteria included the following items: (1) Meta-analyses or systematic reviews including non-RCT; (2) Systematic reviews did not conducting meta-analysis or pooling data; (3) Abstract, commentary, methodological study, narrative review.

Meta-analyses/systematic reviews selection

Firstly, two reviewers assessed the titles and abstracts of researched studies for the eligibility criteria independently. The two reviewers were not blinded to the journals, organizations, financial assistance, conflict of interest and researchers’ information. Subsequently, the full text of the studies that potentially met the inclusion criteria was read to determine the final inclusion. Any disagreement was resolved by reaching a consensus through discussion.

Date extraction

Two reviewers independently extracted the data from each included literature by the use of a standard data extraction form. The following items were extracted: title, authors, original study design, database, total number of studies, level of evidence, the pooled results and methodological variables.

Assessment of methodological quality

The quality assessment was independently conducted by two authors. Disagreements were resolved by discussion or a third reviewer was involved. The Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) method was used to evaluate the methodological quality of included studies17. The AMSTAR was a measurement scale containing eleven items, and it was applied extensively in assessing methodological quality of published meta-analysis or systematic review18.

Heterogeneity within included studies

Heterogeneity of each outcome (primary and secondary outcomes) was reported for the each included meta-analyses. The following two questions were also evaluated: whether sensitivity analysis was performed in meta-analysis and whether the included meta-analyses evaluated potential sources of heterogeneity across primary studies. Upon the Cochrane Handbook, Heterogeneity of each outcome between 0% and 40% is regarded as not important; between 30% and 60% is moderate; between 50% and 90% is substantial, and between 75% and 100% is considerable. Therefore, I2 less than 60% are accepted in the present study.

Choice of best evidence

Treatment recommendations were made according to the Jadad decision algorithm19. The methodological instrument confirmed the source of inconsistence between meta-analyses, including differences in clinical problem, inclusion and exclusion standard, extracted data, methodological quality assessment, data combining, and statistical analysis methods19. The application of algorithm was performed by two independent reviewers. Our evaluation group came to conformity as to which of included meta-analyses can provide best evidence based on the current information.

Results

Literature search

Thirty-three titles and abstracts were preliminarily identified with the first search strategy, of which 12 of the published meta-analyses6910111220212223242526 ultimately met the eligibility criteria (Fig. 1). Two studies2728 were excluded because they conducted network meta-analysis among each kinds of HA. Three meta-analyses293031 were excluded because they were performed to compare the efficacy and safety of HA with corticosteroids. Three studies, including primary studies in ankle/hip joints, were also excluded323334.
Figure 1

Flowchart of the study selection process.

Table 1 presented the characteristics of included meta-analysis. The number of original studies in meta-analysis varied from 5 in that study published in 2006 to 89 that published in 2012 (Table 2). All included meta-analyses conducted qualitatively data synthesis.
Table 1

General Description of the Characteristics of included Meta-Analyses.

AuthorsJournalDate of Last Literature searchDate of publicationNo. of included studiesNo. of included RCTsNo. of grey literature
Lo et al.20JAMAFebruary, 2003December, 200322193
Wang et al.21The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volumeDecember, 2001March, 200420200
Modawal et al.22The Journal of family practiceAugust, 2004September, 2005990
Arrich et al.23CMAJ: Canadian Medical Association journalApril, 2004April, 200522220
Strand et al.24Osteoarthritis and cartilageDecember, 2004September, 2006532
Bellamy et al.25The Cochrane database of systematic reviewsDecember, 2005February, 200640400
Bannuru et al.9Osteoarthritis and cartilageMarch, 2010Jun, 201149490
Rutjes et al.10Annals of internal medicineJanuary, 2012August, 2012897132
Colen et al.26BioDrugsJune, 2011August, 201274740
Miller et al.11Clinical medicine insights. Arthritis and musculoskeletal disordersJune, 2013December. 201329290
Richette et al.12RMD openDecember, 2013January, 2015880
Strand et al.6Journal of pain researchDecember, 2013May, 201529290
Table 2

Primary Studies Included in Previous Meta-analyses.

Primary StudyLo et al.20Wang et al.21Modawal et al.22Arrich et al.23Strand et al.24Bellamy et al.25Bannuru et al.9Rutjes et al.10Colen et al.26Miller et al.11Richette et al.12Strand et al.6
Adams et al. 1995−+−−−+−−+−−−
Altman et al. 1998+−++−+++++−+
Altman et al. 2004−−−−−++++−+−
Altman et al. 2009−−−−−−++++++
Anika et al. 2000−−−−−−−+−−−−
Anika et al. 2001−−−−−−−+−−−−
Ardic et al. 2001−−−−−+−+−−−−
Atamaz et al. 2006−−−−−−−−+−−−
Atay et al. 2008−−−−−−−++−−−
Auerbach et al. 2002−−−−−+−−+−−−
Baltzer et al. 2009−−−−−−+++−−−
Baraf et al. 2009−−−−−−++−−−−
Bayramoglu et al. 2003−−−−−+−++−−−
Bellamy et al. 2005−−−−−−−−+−−−
Bragantini et al. 1987−+−+−+++++−+
Brandt et al. 2001++−+−++−++−+
Bunyaratavej et al. 2001−−−+−+++−+−+
Butun et al. 2002−−−−−−−+−−−−
Caborn et al. 2004−−−−−+−−+−−−
Caracuel et al. 2001−−−−−−−+−−−−
Carrabba et al. 1995++−+−+++++−+
Chevalier et al. 2010−−−−−−+++−+−
Chou et al. 2009−−−−−−−−+−−−
Cogalgil et al. 2002−−−−−−−+−−−−
Cohen et al. 1994++−−−+++−−−−
Conrozier et al. 2009−−−−−−−−+−−−
Corrado et al. 1995++−+−++++−−−
Creamer et al. 1994++−−−++++−−−
Cubukcu et al. 2004−−−−−+−−−+−−
Cubukcu et al. 2005−−−−−−++−−−+
Dahlberg et al. 1994+−−+−−+−+−−−
Day et al. 2004−−−+++++++−+
DeCaria et al. 2012−−−−−−−−−+−+
Dickson et al. 1998−+−−−−−−−−−−
Dickson et al. 2001−−−−−+++−−−−
Diracoglu et al. 2009−−−−−−−+++−+
Dixon et al. 1988++−+−++++−−−
Dougados et al. 1993++−+−++++−−−
Esteve de Miguel et al. 1995−−−−−−−+−−−−
Formiguera et al. 1995−+−−−+−+−−−−
Forster et al. 2003−−−−−+−−+−−−
Frizziero et al. 2002−−−−−+−−+−−−
Genzyme et al. 2005−−−−−−−+−−−−
Ghirardini et al. 1990−−−−−−−+−−−−
Graf et al. 1993−−−−−+−−+−−−
Graf von der Schulenburg et al. 1997−−−−−−−+−−−−
Grecomoro et al. 1987−+++−+++++−+
Groppa et al. 2001−−−−−+−+−−−−
Groppa et al. 2004−−−−−−−+−−−−
Guler et al. 1996−−−−−+++−−−−
Henderson et al. 1994++++−+++++−+
Heybeli et al. 2008−−−−−−−++−−−
Hizmetli et al. 1999−−−−−++−−−−−
Hizmetli et al. 2002−−−−−−−+−−−−
Huang et al. 2005−−−−−+−+−−−−
Huang et al. 2011−−−−−−−+−+−+
Huskisson et al. 1999++++−+++++−+
Isdale et al. 1993−−−−−−−+−−−−
Jorgensen et al. 2010−−−−−−−+++−+
Jubb et al. 2003+−−+−+++++−+
Juni et al. 2007−−−−−−−−+−−−
Kahan et al. 2003−−−−−+−++−−−
Kalay et al. 1997−−−−−+−+−−−−
Karatosun et al. 2005−−−−−+−−+−−−
Karlsson et al. 2002+−−+−+++++−+
Kawasaki et al. 2009−−−−−−−−+−−−
Kirchner et al. 2006−−−−−+−−+−−−
Kosuwon et al. 2010−−−−−−−+−−−−
Kotevoglu et al. 2006−−−−−−++++−+
Kul-Panza et al. 2010−−−−−−−+++−+
Leardini et al. 1987−−−−−+−−+−−−
Leardini et al. 1991−−−−−+−−+−−−
Lee et al. 2006−−−−−−−−+−−−
Lee et al. 2011−−−−−−−−+−−−
Leopold et al. 2003−−−−−+−−+−−−
Lin et al. 2004−−−−−+−−−−−−
Listrat et al. 1997−−−−−+−+−−−−
Lohmander et al. 1996++++++++++−+
Lundsgaard et al. 2008−−−−−−++++++
McDonald et al. 2000−−−−−+−−−−−−
Miltner et al. 2002−−−−−+−+−−−−
Moreland et al. 1993−−−−−+++−−−−
Nahler et al. 1996−−−−−+−−−−−−
Nahler et al. 1998−−−−−+−−−−−−
Navarro-Sarabia et al. 2011−−−−−−−+−−+−
Neustadt et al. 2004−−−−−+−+−−−−
Neustadt et al. 2005−−−−−++−+−−−
Onel et al. 2008−−−−−−−−+−−−
Ozturk et al. 2006−−−−−−−−+−−−
Patrella et al. 2002−−−−−−−−+−−−
Pavelka et al. 2010−−−−−−−+−−−−
Payne et al. 2000−−−−−−−+−−−−
Pedersen et al. 1993−−−−−−−+−−−−
Petrella et al. 2002+−++−+++−−−−
Petrella et al. 2006−−−−−−+++−+ 
Petrella et al. 2008−−−−−−++++−+
Petrella et al. 2009−−−−−−−+−−−−
Pham et al. 2003+−−−−+−−−−−−
Pham et al. 2004−−−−−++++−−−
Pietrogrande et al. 1991−−−−−+−−+−−−
Puhl et al. 1993++++++++++++
Raman et al. 2008−−−−−−−−+−−−
Raynauld et al. 2002−−−−−+−++−−−
Raynauld et al. 2005−−−−−−−−+−−−
Renklitepe et al. 2000−−−−−−−+−−−−
Rolf et al. 2005−−−−−−+−−+−+
Russell et al. 1992+−−+−−++−−−−
Rydell et al. 1972−−−−−−−+−−−−
Sala et al. 1995+−−+−−+−−+−+
Sanofi-Aventis et al. 2010−−−−−−−+−−−−
Saravanan et al. 2002−−−−−−−+−−−−
Scale et al. 1994++++−+++++−+
Schneider et al. 1997−−−−−+−+−−−−
Seikagaku et al. 2001−−−−−−−+−−−−
Seikagaku et al. 2001a−−−−−−−+−−−−
Sezgin et al. 2005−−−−−+++−−−−
Shichikawa et al. 1983−−−−−+++−−+−
Shichikawa et al. 1983a−−−−−−++−−−−
Shimizu et al. 2010−−−−−−−−+−−−
Skwara et al. 2009−−−−−−−−+−−−
Skwara et al. 2009a−−−−−−−−+−−−
Stittik et al. 2007−−−−−−−−+−−−
Strand et al. 2012−−−−−−−−−+−+
Tamir et al. 2001++−+−++++−−−
Tascioglu et al. 2003−−−−−+−−+−−−
Tekeoglu et al. 1998−−−−−+−−−−−−
Tetik et al. 2003−−−−−−−+−−−−
Thompson et al. 2002−−−−−+−−−−−−
Tsai et al. 2003−−−−−+++−−−−
Ulucay et al. 2007−−−−−−−−+−−−
Vanelli et al. 2010−−−−−−−−+−−−
Weiss et al. 1981−−−−−−−++−−−
Weiss et al. 1981a−−−−−−−+−−−−
Westrich et al. 2009−−−−−−−−+−−−
Wobig et al. 1998++++−+++++−−
Wobig et al. 1999−−−−−+−−+−−+
Wu et al. 1997−+−+−+++−−−+
Wu et al. 2004−−−−−+−+−+−−

Search methodology

The literature search methodology which was adopted by included meta-analysis was present in Table 3. Most of the databases that the included studies searched were Medline, Embase or Cochrane database.
Table 3

Databases Mentioned by Included Meta-analyses during Literature Searches.

AuthorsSearch Database
MedlineEmbaseCochraneBIOSISEBSCOGoogle Scholarothers
Lo et al.20+−+−−−−
Wang et al.21+++−−−−
Modawal et al.22+−+−−−−
Arrich et al.23+++++−−
Strand et al.24−−−−−−−
Bellamy et al.25+++−−−+
Bannuru et al.9+++++++
Rutjes et al.10+++−−−+
Colen et al.26+++−−−−
Miller et al.11++−−−−−−
Richette et al.12+++−−−−
Strand et al.6++−−−−−

Methodological quality of included meta-analyses

Methodological characteristics of included Meta-analyses were presented in Table 4. All included meta-analyses only included RCTs and/or quasi-RCTs. The evidence degree of each meta-analysis was Level II. REVMAN, STATA, SAS, R and Comprehensive Meta-analysis software were used in meta-analyses. Subgroup and sensitivity analysis were used in some of the included studies. None meta-analysis used GRADE in their study. The AMSTAR results with each question of included meta-analysis were shown in Table 5. The average score of AMSTAR of included meta-analyses was 7.25, ranging from 4 to 11. All included meta-analyses reported that there was no conflict of interest in making meta-analysis. One meta-analysis conducted by Bellamy et al.25 was the highest quality study.
Table 4

Methodological Characteristics of Included Meta-analyses.

AuthorsPrimary study designLevel of evidenceSoftwareSensitivity analysisSubgroup analysisGARDE evidence profiles
Lo et al.20RCTLevel IISASYES-NONO
Wang et al.21RCTLevel IISTATANOYESNO
Modawal et al.22RCTLevel IISTATAYESNONO
Arrich et al.23RCTLevel IISTATAYESNONO
Strand et al.24RCTLevel IISASNONONO
Bellamy et al.25RCTLevel IIREVMANYESNONO
Bannuru et al.9RCTLevel IIR softwareYESYESNO
Rutjes et al.10RCT or quasi-RCTLevel IISTATAYESYESNO
Colen et al.26RCTLevel IIREVMANNONONO
Miller et al.11RCTLevel IIComprehensive Meta-analysisYESNONO
Richette et al.12RCTLevel IIR softwareNONONO
Strand et al.6RCTLevel IIComprehensive Meta-analysisYESYESNO
Table 5

AMSTAR Criteria for Included Meta-analyses.

ItemsLo et al.20Wang et al.21Modawal et al.22Arrich et al.23Strand et al.24Bellamy et al.25Bannuru et al.9Rutjes et al.10Colen et al.26Miller et al.11Richette et al.12Strand et al.6
Was a prior design provided?000001010010
Was there duplicate selection and data extraction?111001111010
Was a comprehensive literature search preformed?111101111011
Was the status of publication used as an inclusion criterion?101111111011
Was a list of included/excluded studies provided?000001000000
Were the profiles of the included studies provided?111111110111
Was the methodological quality of the included studies evaluated and documented?010101110101
Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?010101110000
Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?111111111111
Was the publication bias evaluated?111101010011
Were the conflicts of interest stated?111111111111
Total score78784118105487

Heterogeneity Assessment

Table 6 presented the data of heterogeneity of each variable in each meta-analysis. The I2 value was adopted to calculate the heterogeneity among original studies as a measurement aiming to ascertain the inter-studies variability in all included meta-analyses.
Table 6

Heterogeneity of each outcome in included meta-analyses.

OutcomesLo et al.20Wang et al.21Modawal et al.22Arrich et al.23Strand et al.24Bellamy et al.25Bannuru et al.9Rutjes et al.10Colen et al.26Miller et al.11Richette et al.12Strand et al.6
Overall pooled effect size+           
Lequesne index score (early)    ++      
Lequesne index score (late)     +      
Knee function (early)   66% −79%  54%−54%
Knee function (late)   62%     69% 69%
Knee stiffness      74%     
Physical function       +    
Pain with activities (early) +   +      
Pain with activities (early)     +      
Pain during or immediately after exercise (early)   81% +      
Pain during or immediately after exercise (late)   − −      
Patient global assessment (early)     +      
Patient global assessment (late)     +      
Pain at rest (early)   94% +      
Pain at rest (late)   −        
Knee pain outcomes (early)  + −+75%+92%73%32%73%
Knee pain outcomes (late)  +   32%  75% 75%
WOMAC pain     +      
WOMAC phsical function     +      
Overall adverse events + − − + − −
Flare-ups       +    
Injection-site reaction    −       
Injection-site pain    -       
Arthralgia    −       
Arthropathy/arthrosis/arthritis    −       
Back pain    −       
Headache    −       
Knee effusion       +    
Discontinued due to adverse event    −− +   −
Overall study withdrawal     −     −
Mortality −          

+Has heterogeneity but not reported.

−No heterogeneity.

Results of Jadad Decision Algorithm

All outcomes reported in primary meta-analyses were reported in Fig. 2. According to the following three respects (the meta-analyses addressed the same clinical question, did not include the same original studies, and not have similar inclusion/exclusion criteria), the Jadad algorithm proposed that the eligible meta-analyses can be elected on account of the methodological quality and publication statue (Fig. 3). As a result, a Cochrane meta-analysis25 with highest quality was selected. Bellamy et al. supported the use of the HA in the treatment of knee OA with beneficial effects on pain, function and patient global assessment.
Figure 2

Results of each included meta-analysis.

Red means favoring hyaluronic acid; green means no difference; yellow means not reporting; and blue means favoring placebo. Arabic numerals mean the number of included randomized clinical trials.

Figure 3

Flow diagram of Jadad decision algorithm.

Discussion

According to the above mentioned methodology, the meta-analysis conducted by Bellamy et al.25 is with highest quality compared with others. The best available evidence hints that HA is an effective intervention in treating knee OA without increased risk of adverse events. Therefore, the current evidence supports the use of the HA in the treating knee OA. Meta-analyses or systematic reviews are commonly regarded as the highest level of clinical evidence35. Clinicians can make meaningful clinical decisions with the help of meta-analyses or systematic reviews. However, a larger number of meta-analyses involving in the same clinical question have been published with conflicting results. This phenomenon was also occurred in the evidence-based study in HA injections for knee OA. Although numerous meta-analyses or systematic reviews have been written in treating knee OA via HA, there was still in controversy. Such discrepancy results in some difficulties for decision makers (including clinicians, policymakers and patients, depending on the context) who rely on this synthesized evidence to help them make decisions among pharmacological interventions when the results of trials are not unanimous. Jadad et al.19 concluded the following potential sources of inconsistency among meta-analyses, including the clinical topic, eligible criteria, data extraction, quality assessment, assessment of the ability to combine studies, and statistical methods for data synthesis. Furthermore, Jadad et al.19 provided a decision methodological tool which summarizes the process for identifying and resolving causes of discordance. The ultimate purpose was to help clinical decision makers to select best evidence from inconsistency meta-analyses and systematic reviews. As recommended by Jadad et al., decision algorithm, a widely used tool363738, is a useful instrument for differencing between meta-analyses or systematic reviews. Although Jadad decision algorithm choose comprehensive meta-analysis among discordant reviews, more empirical evidence is required to establish the effect of these elements on the validity of the review process, their relative importance and their effect on the results of a review. According to the decision algorithm, the Cochrane meta-analysis conducted by Bellamy et al. was selected in the present study. Bellamy et al.25 reported that HA was an effective treatment for knee OA at different post injection periods but especially at the 5 to 13 week post injection period, and few adverse events were reported in the HA. However, there is considerable between-product, between-variable and time-dependent variability in the clinical response. Therefore, we concluded that HA is an effective and safety intervention in treating knee OA. Although the positive results were reported, effect size statistic was not used in the study. Thus, we did not have entire confidence in the extent of symptomatic improvement. Rutjes and his colleagues10 published a high-quality systematic review (AMSTAR score: 10) in Annals of Internal Medicine. This study used effect size statistic and demonstrated that OA was associated with a small and clinical irrelevant benefit and an increased risk of adverse events. However, the use of the effect size statistic to infer clinically meaningful changes in efficacy outcomes is frequently misinterpreted. Rutjes et al. reported an effect size of 0.37 and then erroneously state that this is equivalent to an improvement in knee pain of 0.9 cm on a 10 cm scale. As showed in Table 1, Rutjes meta-analysis included largest number of RCTs (including published RCTs and grey literature). However, the conclusions in this paper were heavily influenced by inclusion of unpublished, unverifiable data. The conclusion of the present study is consistent with the finding published in 2015 by Richette and his colleagues12. They performed a meta-analysis only including low bias and high-quality RCTs (adequate randomization and concealment and double-blind design) and showed that HA provided a moderate but real benefit for patients with knee OA. Recently, Strand et al.6 conducted a meta-analysis to investigate the safety and efficacy of UA-approved HA for knee OA. Strand’s study was the only known report to cite the pretreatment to posttreatment standardized mean difference. The statistic results represented very large treatment effects for HA. Thus, it reported that US-approved HA is safe and efficacious through 26weeks in treating knee OA. The primary limitations of this meta-analysis include the following: (1) English language studies were included in the present overlapping meta-analyses. Although numerous meta-analyses were included in the present study, it is possible that we have omitted non-English language reviews. (2) Several factors of primary trials, such as study design, publication bias and clinical heterogeneity, may influence interpretation. (3) The selected meta-analysis was published in 2006, which will influence the stability of the results. Newest published high-quality meta-analyses are needed to confirm the present evidence. To sum up, the present systematic review of overlapping meta-analyses investigated efficacy and safety of HA in treating Knee OA. Currently, the best evidence suggested that HA is an effective intervention in treating knee OA without increased risk of adverse events. Therefore, the evidence supports the use of the HA in the treating knee OA. Further studies with effect size statistic are still required to qualify the clinical efficacy.

Additional Information

How to cite this article: Xing, D. et al. Intra-articular Hyaluronic Acid in Treating Knee Osteoarthritis: a PRISMA-Compliant Systematic Review of Overlapping Meta-analysis. Sci. Rep. 6, 32790; doi: 10.1038/srep32790 (2016).
  38 in total

Review 1.  Hyaluronic acid injections relieve knee pain.

Authors:  Arvind Modawal; Monste Ferrer; Hyon K Choi; Julia A Castle
Journal:  J Fam Pract       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 0.493

Review 2.  Intra-articular hyaluronic acid for the treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Jasmin Arrich; Franz Piribauer; Philipp Mad; Daniela Schmid; Klaus Klaushofer; Marcus Müllner
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2005-04-12       Impact factor: 8.262

Review 3.  Is intra-articular hyaluronic acid effective in treating osteoarthritis of the hip joint?

Authors:  Jay R Lieberman; Stephen M Engstrom; Olga Solovyova; Carol Au; James J Grady
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2013-11-08       Impact factor: 4.757

4.  Estimates of the prevalence of arthritis and other rheumatic conditions in the United States. Part II.

Authors:  Reva C Lawrence; David T Felson; Charles G Helmick; Lesley M Arnold; Hyon Choi; Richard A Deyo; Sherine Gabriel; Rosemarie Hirsch; Marc C Hochberg; Gene G Hunder; Joanne M Jordan; Jeffrey N Katz; Hilal Maradit Kremers; Frederick Wolfe
Journal:  Arthritis Rheum       Date:  2008-01

5.  The synthesis of hyaluronic acid by human synovial fibroblasts is influenced by the nature of the hyaluronate in the extracellular environment.

Authors:  M M Smith; P Ghosh
Journal:  Rheumatol Int       Date:  1987       Impact factor: 2.631

6.  Intra-articular hyaluronic acid in treatment of knee osteoarthritis: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Grace H Lo; Michael LaValley; Timothy McAlindon; David T Felson
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2003-12-17       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 7.  Hyaluronic acid and other conservative treatment options for osteoarthritis of the ankle.

Authors:  Angelique G H Witteveen; Cheriel J Hofstad; Gino M M J Kerkhoffs
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2015-10-17

Review 8.  Safety and efficacy of US-approved viscosupplements for knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, saline-controlled trials.

Authors:  Vibeke Strand; Louis F McIntyre; William R Beach; Larry E Miller; Jon E Block
Journal:  J Pain Res       Date:  2015-05-07       Impact factor: 3.133

9.  Intra-articular hyaluronic acid and corticosteroids in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis: A meta-analysis.

Authors:  Fang Wang; Xijing He
Journal:  Exp Ther Med       Date:  2014-12-15       Impact factor: 2.447

Review 10.  Intramedullary nail versus plate fixation for humeral shaft fractures: a systematic review of overlapping meta-analyses.

Authors:  Jia-Guo Zhao; Jia Wang; Chen Wang; Shi-Lian Kan
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 1.889
View more
  18 in total

1.  EUROVISCO Recommendations for Optimizing the Clinical Results of Viscosupplementation in Osteoarthritis.

Authors:  Thierry Conrozier; Jordi Monfort; Xavier Chevalier; Raghu Raman; Pascal Richette; Demirhan Diraçoglù; Hervé Bard; Dominique Baron; Jörg Jerosch; Alberto Migliore; Yves Henrotin
Journal:  Cartilage       Date:  2018-06-21       Impact factor: 4.634

Review 2.  Intra-articular hyaluronic acid in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis: a Canadian evidence-based perspective.

Authors:  Mohit Bhandari; Raveendhara R Bannuru; Eric M Babins; Johanne Martel-Pelletier; Moin Khan; Jean-Pierre Raynauld; Renata Frankovich; Deanna Mcleod; Tahira Devji; Mark Phillips; Emil H Schemitsch; Jean-Pierre Pelletier
Journal:  Ther Adv Musculoskelet Dis       Date:  2017-09-12       Impact factor: 5.346

Review 3.  A Comprehensive Review of Viscosupplementation in Osteoarthritis of the Knee.

Authors:  Jacquelin Peck; Annabel Slovek; Paulo Miro; Neeraj Vij; Blake Traube; Christopher Lee; Amnon A Berger; Hisham Kassem; Alan D Kaye; William F Sherman; Alaa Abd-Elsayed
Journal:  Orthop Rev (Pavia)       Date:  2021-07-10

Review 4.  Viscosupplementation for the treatment of osteoarthritis. The contribution of EUROVISCO group.

Authors:  Thierry Conrozier; Raghu Raman; Xavier Chevalier; Yves Henrotin; Jordi Monfort; Demirhan Diraçoglù; Hervé Bard; Dominique Baron; Jörg Jerosch; Pascal Richette; Alberto Migliore
Journal:  Ther Adv Musculoskelet Dis       Date:  2021-05-28       Impact factor: 5.346

5.  The use of cellular matrix in symptomatic knee osteoarthritis.

Authors:  Abir Aly Abbassy; Suad Trebinjac; Nehad Kotb
Journal:  Bosn J Basic Med Sci       Date:  2020-05-01       Impact factor: 3.363

6.  Clinical and radiographic comparison of a single LP-PRP injection, a single hyaluronic acid injection and daily NSAID administration with a 52-week follow-up: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  David Buendía-López; Manuel Medina-Quirós; Miguel Ángel Fernández-Villacañas Marín
Journal:  J Orthop Traumatol       Date:  2018-08-20

Review 7.  Evidence for Transient Receptor Potential (TRP) Channel Contribution to Arthritis Pain and Pathogenesis.

Authors:  Tabitha Galindo; Jose Reyna; Andy Weyer
Journal:  Pharmaceuticals (Basel)       Date:  2018-10-15

Review 8.  One-year efficacy and safety of single or one to three weekly injections of hylan G-F 20 for knee osteoarthritis: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Orazio De Lucia; Joerg Jerosch; Sophie Yoon; Tobias Sayre; Wilson Ngai; Georgios Filippou
Journal:  Clin Rheumatol       Date:  2020-10-27       Impact factor: 2.980

Review 9.  Recent advances in hyaluronic acid based therapy for osteoarthritis.

Authors:  Steven Bowman; Mohamed E Awad; Mark W Hamrick; Monte Hunter; Sadanand Fulzele
Journal:  Clin Transl Med       Date:  2018-02-16

10.  Adding Intra-Articular Growth Hormone to Platelet Rich Plasma under Ultrasound Guidance in Knee Osteoarthritis: A Comparative Double-Blind Clinical Trial.

Authors:  Poupak Rahimzadeh; Farnad Imani; Seyed-Hamid-Reza Faiz; Mahmoud-Reza Alebouyeh; Damoon Azad-Ehyaei; Leila Bahari; Arash Memarian; Kyung-Hoon Kim
Journal:  Anesth Pain Med       Date:  2016-10-19
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.