Supplementary Data - Rheumatology

beigecakeUrban and Civil

Nov 16, 2013 (3 years and 11 months ago)

90 views

The use and reporting of WOMAC



Appendix A

Quality assessment checklist and scoring method

1 Was the number of patients randomised to
treatment stated?

1.1 Yes

1.2 No

2 Method of randomisation appropriate?

2.1 Yes

2.2 No

2.3 Unclear/not stated

3 Appropriate allocation concealment?

3.1

Yes

3.2 No

3.3 Unclear/not stated

4 Appropriate type of placebo used?

4.1 Yes

4.2 No (give brief details)

4.3 Unclear/not stated

4.4 Not applicable

5 Group baseline characteristics comparable?

5.1 Yes

5.2 No

5.3 Unclear/not stated

6 Described as double

blind?

6.1 Yes

6.2 No

6.3 Unclear/not stated

7 Treatment giver blinded?

7.1 Yes

7.2 No

7.3 Unclear/not stated

8 Patient blinded?

8.1 Yes

8.2 No

8.3 Unclear/not stated

9 Outcome assessor blinded?

9.1 Yes

9.2 No

9.3 Unclear/not stated

10 Use of a power
calculation reported?

10.1 Yes

10.2 No

11 Eligibility criteria adequately reported?

11.1 Yes

11.2 No

The use and reporting of WOMAC



12 Clear reporting of losses to follow up?

12.1 Yes

12.2 No

13 Intention
-
to
-
treat data reported (analysed)?

13.1 Yes

13.2 No

13.3 Unclear

14 At least
90% full follow up achieved?

14.1 Yes

14.2 No

14.3 Unclear

15 Overall study quality (see method for rating
below)

15.1 Excellent

15.2 Good

15.3 Satisfactory

15.4 Poor


Method for rating overall study quality:

Excellent: answers Yes for 1
-
3, 5, 6, 8
-
14
and Yes or Not Applicable for 4

Good : answers Yes for 1, 5, 8, 9, 11
-
14 and Yes or unclear/not stated for questions 2, 3, 4 (or Not
applicable for 4)

Satisfactory: answers Yes for 1, 5, 11, 12, 13 and Not ‘No’ for 4)


Poor: The answer is not Yes for one o
f the criteria required for ‘Satisfactory’.

























The use and reporting of WOMAC



Supplementary
table 1: List of trials in OAK review that reported WOMAC pain subscale

Trial

B
aseline
pain score

Conclusions and assumptions needed

S
tudy
quality

Jenkinson

2009
(1)


8

Likert (0
-
4) across 5 pain items (assumed); 0
-
20 (stated).

Assumption based on pain scale reported to be 0
-
20. (Baseline 8/20 = 0.4)

Satisfactory

Trans 2009
(2)


27

Can’t tel
l if Likert or VAS scale used; score 0
-
100(stated).

Pain score results presented out of 100 (27/100=0.27)

Satisfactory

Lee 2009
(3)


6.5

Unclear. Unusual score range suggests Likert but unclear about how scores were
distributed.

Baseline score is low if out of 35 (6.5/35=0.186)

Satisfactory

Lin 2009
(4)


8.5

Likert (0
-
4) across 5 pain items (stated); score 0
-
20 (stated).

Clearly reported and fits with baseline score of 8.5/20 (0.425)

No assumptions

Satisfactory

Sherman 2009
(5)


30.

VAS 0
-
10 across 5 items Assumed; score 0
-
50 (stated)
.

Assumed based on score range of 0
-
50 and baseline value of 30/50 (0.60)

Poor

Yurtkuran 2006
(6)


14

Likert (1
-
5) across 5 items (stated); Score range 5
-
25(assumed)

Assumption Score range 5
-
25

Baseline 14/25= 0.56

Poor

Shen 2009
(7)


8

Likert (assumed); score range 0
-
20 (stated).

Assumed Likert because of score range and baseline. 8/20 = 0.4

Says 3 assessments done
: not clear
what is meant

Satisfactory

Barrios 2009
(8)


40

Unclear


could be VA
S or Likert standardised to 100; score 0
-
100 (stated).

Clear that score range is 0
-
100. Baseline 40/100 = 0.4

Satisfactory

Selfe 2008
(9)


26

11 pt NRS
(stated)
; 0
-
50
(stated)

Baseline 26/50 = 0.52

Poor

Burch 2008
(10)


9.5

Likert 0
-
4 (stated), 0
-
20 (stated)

Baseline 9.5/20= 0.47

No
assumptions


clear reporting

Poor

Jubb 2008
(11)


275

VAS 0
-
100 (assumed); 0
-
500 (assumed)

Assumption based on baseline score of 275 and statement that scores were not
normalised

275/500= 0.55

Poor

Rattanac
haiyanont
2008
(12)

4

VAS 0
-
10
(stated)
; 0
-
10
(stated)

Assumed that scores averaged across the 5 items to give baseline of 4/10=0.4

Poor

Lim 2008
(13)


35

Likert 5 (stated); 0
-
100 (stated)

Assumed all 5 items scored.

Baseline 35/100=0.35

No assumption needed

Satisfactory

For neutral
group

Poor

for
malaligned
group

Jan 2008
(14)


8

Likert 0
-
4 (stated); 0
-
20 (stated)

Baseline 8/20 = 0.4

No assumption needed

Satisfactory

An 2008
(15)


130

VAS 0
-
100 (stated); Unclear score range


presumably 0
-
500 but baseline
of 130
seems low if out of 500 (= 0.26)

Poor

Hurley 2007
(16)


7.5

Likert (stated); score range 0
-
20 (stated).

Assumed 0
-
4 scale for 5 items

Baseline 7.5/20=0.37

Satisfactory

The use and reporting of WOMAC




Trial

B
aseline
pain score

Conclusions and assumptions needed

S
tudy
quality

Weiner 2007
(17)


9

Likert(assumed); 0
-
20 (
assumed)

Assumptions made based on baseline score of 9


9/20=0.45

Good

Garland 2007
(18)


50

VAS 0
-
100
(stated)
; 0
-
500
(stated)
Clearly reported

However baseline 50 seems
too low (50/500=0.01) so perhaps score mean
across 5 items not sum

Poor

Balint 2007
(19)


8

Likert(assumed); 0
-
20 (assumed)

Assumptions made based on baseline score of 8. 8/20=0.4

Poor

Moss 2007
(20)

No

Likert 0
-
4(stated); 0
-
20 (stated)clearly reported

No assumptions

Good

Baker 2007
(21)


265

VAS 0
-
100(stated); 0
-
500(stated).

Assumed VAS 0
-
100 because clearly stated 5 items and scor
e range 0
-
500 and
baseline score of 265. 265/500=0.53

Poor

Durmus 2007
(22)


7

VAS 0
-
10 Assumed; 0
-
10 Assumed

Assumed score is mean of 5 items rat
her than sum. Though baseline score of 7 if
out of 10 is a bit high. 7/10 = 0.7

Satisfactory

Brismee 2007
(23)


16.5

Unclear; scale 7
-
35 ((stated but unclear how to interpret). This would suggest 7
items scored from 1= no pain to 5 extreme pain, but this isn’t WOMAC and isn’t
state din the paper


Difficult to know how to interpret a scale that doesn’t start at zero. 16.5/35 = 0.47

If convert to 0
-
6 scale = 9.5/28= 0.34


Satisfactory

Perlman 2006
(24)

46

VAS 0
-
100
(stated)
; score range is 0
-
100
(stated)

Baseline 46/100=0.46

Poor

Witt 2006
(25)


48

Unclear; 0
-
100 (assumed)

Assumption that score is out of 100 (normalised VAS or Likert)

48/100=0.48

Satisfactory

Hay 2006
(26)


9

Likert

assumed
; 0
-
20

(stated)

State
d

WOMAC pain score is 0
-
20 therefore assume it was Likert scale

Baseline
9/20 = 0.45

Poor

Nigg 2006
(27)


168

VAS 0
-
100
(stated)
; 0
-
500
(stated)
-
very clear

No assumptions needed

168/500 = 0.34

Satisfactory

Miller 2006
(28)


6.5

Likert (assumed); 0
-
20(assumed)


all based on assumption because baseline
scor e is 6.5 (6.5/20 = 0.32.


However this could be wrong


score range might be out of 10 baseline 6.5/10 =
0.65

Poor

Witt 2005
(29)

Not
reported

VAS 0
-
100(assumed); score range 0
-
100(assumed)


all based on assumptions


other pain assessment used VAS and
control group mean
a
t week 8 was 45
.
45/100
= 0.45

Satisfactory

Thamsborg 2005
(30)


14

Likert (1
-
5) (stated); score
range 5
-
25 (stated)

Odd scale used. Assumed 5
-
25 not 0
-
25. Difficult to interpret if no zero. 14/25 =
0.56

If translate into Likert 0
-
4 presumably it becomes 9/20=0.45

Poor

Christensen 2005
(31)


184

VAS 100
(stated)
; 0
-
500
(
assumed
)

Score range 0
-
500


though this was clear from 5 items, VAS 0
-
100 and baseline
score of 126. 126/500=0.25


though this seems l
ow

Poor

Berman 2004
(32)


9

Likert 0
-
4

assumed
; 0
-
20 (stated)

Likert 0
-
4 Assumed ; score range 0
-
20 (stated). Baseline 9/20 = 0.45

Satisfactory

Vas 2004
(33)


12

Likert 0
-
4 Assumed; 0
-
20 (stated)

Assumed Likert 0
-
4 from score range. Baseline 12/20=0.6

Good

McCarthy 2004
(34)


10

Likert 0
-
4
(stated)
; 0
-
20 assumed from baseline value of 10

10/20=0.5

Satisfactory

The use and reporting of WOMAC




Trial

B
aseline
pain score

Conclusions and assumptions needed

S
tudy
quality

Mazzuca 2004
(35)


15

Likert (1
-
5)(

assumed
); score range 5
-
25 (stated)

Assumed Likert (1
-
5) from range given. Difficult to interpret if no zero. 15/25 = 0.6

If translate into Likert 0
-
4 presumably it becomes 10/20=0.5

Poor

Tascioglu 2004
(36)


10

Likert 0
-
4 (stated); 0
-
20

assumed

Score range assumed because overall score range given as 0
-
96 and stated 5
items for pain. Baseline 10/20 = 0.5

Satisfactory

Messier 2004
(37)


7

Likert 0
-
4 (stated); 0
-
20 (stated)

No assumptions n
eeded. Baseline 7/20=0.35

Satisfactory

Tukmachi 2004
(38)

11

Likert (stated); score range 0
-
25 (stated)

Assumed Likert (1
-
5) from range given. Difficult to interpret if no zero. Baseline
11/25 = 0.44

If translate into Likert 0
-
4 presumably it becomes 7/20=0.0.35

Good

Sangdee 2002
(39)

10.5

Likert 0
-
4

Assumed
; 0
-
20 (
Assumed)

all assumed from statement that WOMAC
index total = 96 and baseline score was 10.5

105/20=0.53

Poor

Topp 2002
(40)

11.5

Likert 0
-
4 (stated); 0
-
20 (assumed)

Baseline 11.5/20=0.58

Poo
r

Hinman 2002
(41)


19

VAS 0
-
10(state
d); 0
-
50 (stated) all clearly stated

No assumption needed. Baseline 19/50=0.38

Poor

Pipitone 2001
(42)


10

Likert 0
-
4 (assumed); 0
-
20 (assumed)
-

all based on assumption from baseline =
10 10/20=0.5

Poor

Maillefert 2001
(43)


53

Can’t draw conclusions about method of scoring; score range 0
-
100 (assumed).
Baseline score of 53 indicates score out of 100 (either VAS 0
-
100 or standardised
Likert). 53/100=0.53

Satisfactory

Baker 2001
(44)


205

VAS 0
-
100 (stated); 0
-
500(stated)

Did not specify 5 items but can be assumed. 202/500 =0.41

Poor

Maurer 1999
(45)


191

VAS 0
-
100 (stated); 0
-
500 assumed
-

score range assumed from baseline value
of 191

-

191/500 =0.38

Poor

Berman 1999
(46)


10

Likert 0
-
4

assumed
; 0
-
20
assumed
-

all assumed from baseline value of 10
10/20=0.5

Poor

Kirkley (1999)
(47)


160

Vas 0
-
100 assumed ; score 0
-
500
(stated)
.

Baseline 160/500=0.32

Poor

Takeda 1994
(48)


20

VAS 0
-
10 (stated); 0
-
50 (assumed) from baseline of 20

20/50=0.4

Poor

Lansdown 2009
(49)


7

Likert 0
-
4 assumed; 0.20
(stated)

Likert assumed from score range

7/20 = 0.35

Poor

Aglamis 2009
(50)

No

Unclear. Not enough details provided to make assumptions

Poor

Tishler 2004
(51)


11

Likert 0
-
4

assumed
; 0
-
20

assumed

These not specified but assumed because
Specified WOMAC 0
-
96
.

Baseline 11/20=0.55

Poor

Miranda
-
Filloy
2005
(52)


40

Unclear; score 0
-
100 (assumed). Can’t tell if VAS or Likert standardised to 0
-
100.

Baseline 40/100=0.4

Poor

Wolsko 2004
(53)


250

VAS 0
-
100 (stat
ed), 0
-
500 (stated)

No assumptions needed

Baseline 250/500 = 0.5

Poor

Young
1991{#2085)

No

Unclear; Unclear Not enough details to draw any conclusions even with
assumptions

Poor

The use and reporting of WOMAC




Trial

B
aseline
pain score

Conclusions and assumptions needed

S
tudy
quality

Kim 2006
(54)

No

VAS (stated); score range unknown (Unclear)

Not enough details to draw any conclusion
s even with assumptions

Poor

Bilgici 2004
(55)

No

Unclear; Unclear Not enough details to draw any conclusions even with
assumptions

Poor

Wang 2009
(56)


214

VAS 100 (assumed); score 0
-
500 (stated)
-

VAS 100 (assumed from score range

Baseline 214/500=0.43

Poor

Mahoob 2009
(57)


25

VAS(stated) 0
-
10 (assumed), 0
-
50 assumed from fact VAS used and baseline
score (seems too low to be out of 100 or 500)

-

25/50= 0.5

Poor

Fioravanti 2010
(58)


37

Unclear whether VAS
or Likert used; score 0
-
100 (assumed)
-

Score seems
standardised out of 100 ( assumed from baseline score) 37/100=0.37

Satisfactory

Bezalel 2010
(59)


11

Likert 0
-
4
(assumed)
; 0
-
20
(assumed)
-


all assumed from baseline score
11/20=0.55

Poor




The use and reporting of WOMAC



Supplementary

table 2: List of trials in OAK review that reported WOMAC index
Trial

Conclusions and assumptions needed

Overall
study
quality

Lee 2009
(3)

Unclear ; score range 26
-
130 (stated) but not sure how to interpret


Baseline score around 32

Satisfactory

Yurtkuran 2006
(6)

Likert (1
-
5) stated; range 5
-
120 (assumed).

Baseline score 62 = 57/115=0.5

Poor

Selfe 2008
(9)

VAS 0
-
10 (as
sumed); 0
-
240 (stated)

Baseline 126/240=0.53

Poor

Rattanachaiyanont
2008
(12)

Unclear; 0
-
10 (stated)

Baseline
around

4/10=0.4

Poor

Rodrigues 2008
(60)

Unclear what scale; unclear score range

possibly out of 96 or 100 though
baseline score quite high

(baseline values around 70).

Good

Itoh 2008
(61)

Unclear what scale; unclear score range

probably out of 96 or 100


Baseline score around 55

Poor

Hurley 2007
(16)

Likert (stated); score range of 0
-
96 (stated). No assumptions needed

Baseline score around 38/96=0.40

Satisfactory

Williamson 2007
(62)

Unclear what scale; unclear score range

probably out of 96 or 100
.

Baseline score of around 50

Satisfactory

Garland 2007
(18)

VAS 0
-
100 (stated); score
range 0
-
100 (assumed) based on baseline score
of 52, 52/100=0.52

Poor

Balint 2007
(19)

Unclear what scale; unclear score range

probably out of 96 or 100.

Baseline score of around 43

Poor

Brismee 2007
(23)

Unclear ; score range 26
-
130 but not sure how to interpret

Baseline score around 63

Satisfactory

Perlman 2006
(24)

VAS 0
-
100
(assumed); 0
-
100 Assumed due to baseline score and fact that
calculated as
as unweighted mean of all 24 items.

Baseline around 50

Poor

Witt 2006
(25)

Unclear what scale; unclear if score out of 96 or 100

Baseline score around 48

Satisfactory

Nigg 2006
(
27)

VAS 0
-
100 (stated); score range 0
-
2400 (stated). No assumptions needed.

Baseline around 840/2400=0.35

Satisfactory

Miller 2006
(28)

Likert (assumed); score ranged 0
-
96 (assumed) all based on baseline
score around 36/96=0.38

Poor

Witt 2005
(29)

VAS (assumed); 0
-
100 (assumed)

Baseline score around 50

Satisfactory

Christensen 2005
(31)

VAS 0
-
100 (stated); score range 0
-
2400 (stated)

No assumptions needed. Baseline around 894/2400=0.37

Poor

Vas 2004
(33)

Likert (assumed); score (0
-
96) (stated)

Baseline around 58/96=0.6

Good

McCarthy 2004
(34)

Likert (stated); 0
-
96 (assumed)

Baseline score around 45/96=0.47

Satisfactory

Gur 2003
(63)

Unclear; Unclear . score range probably 0
-
96 or 0
-
100 based on baseline
score No details.
Baselin
e around 50

Unclear

Sangdee 2002
(39)

Likert (assumed); sco
re range 0
-
96 (stated)

Baseline
around
53/96=0.55

Poor

Pipitone 2001
(42)

Unclear what scale; unclear score range

probably out of 96 or 100

Poor

Maurer 1999
(45)

VAS 0
-
100 (assumed); 0
-
2400 (assumed from baseline score)

Baseline around 930/2400=0.39

Poor

Berman 1999
(46)

Unclear what scale; unclear score range

probably out of 96 or 100

Baseline around 50

Poor

Kirkley (1999)
(47)

VAS 0
-
100 (stated); score 0
-
2400 (stated)

Baseline
around

840/2400=0.35

Poor

Lansdown 2009
(49)

Likert (
assumed); score range 0
-
96 (stated)

Baseline
around
34/96=0.35

Poor

Itoh 2008
(64)

Likert (assumed);

0
-
100
(stated)

(assume standardised)


Baseline around 50

Poor

Rosemffet 2004
(65)

Likert (stated); score range 0
-
4 (assumed)
-

assumed

from baseline
score). Baseline
around
2/4=0.5

Poor

Aglamis 2009
(50)

Totally unclear

Poor

Tishler 2004
(51)

Likert (assumed from score range); score range 0
-
96 (stated)

Baseline around 53/96=0.55

Poor

Bezalel 2010
(59)

Unclear what scale; unclear score range

probably out of 96 or 100

Baseline around 48

Poor


The use and reporting of WOMAC




References

1.

Jenkinson CM, Doherty M, Avery AJ, Read A, Taylor MA, Sach TH, et al. Effects of dietary
intervention and quadriceps
strengthening exercises on pain and function in overweight people with
knee pain: randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2009;339:b3170.

2.

Trans T, Aaboe J, Henriksen M, Christensen R, Bliddal H, Lund H. Effect of whole body
vibration exercise on muscle streng
th and proprioception in females with knee osteoarthritis. Knee.
2009 Aug;16(4):256
-
61.

3.

Lee HJ, Park HJ, Chae Y, Kim SY, Kim SN, Kim ST, et al. Tai Chi Qigong for the quality of life
of patients with knee osteoarthritis: a pilot, randomized, waiting lis
t controlled trial. Clin Rehabil. 2009
Jun;23(6):504
-
11.

4.

Lin DH, Lin CHJ, Lin YF, Jan MH. Efficacy of 2 non
-
weight
-
bearing interventions,
proprioception training versus strength training, for patients with knee osteoarthritis: a randomized
clinical tria
l. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2009 Jun;39(6):450
-
7.

5.

Sherman G, Zeller L, Avriel A, Friger M, Harari M, Sukenik S. Intermittent balneotherapy at
the Dead Sea area for patients with knee osteoarthritis. Isr Med Assoc J. 2009 Feb;11(2):88
-
93.

6.

Yurtkuran
M, Yurtkuran M, Alp A, Nasircilar A, Bingol U, Altan L, et al. Balneotherapy and tap
water therapy in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis. Rheumatol Int. 2006 Nov;27(1):19
-
27.

7.

Shen X, Zhao L, Ding G, Tan M, Gao J, Wang L, et al. Effect of combined lase
r acupuncture
on knee osteoarthritis: a pilot study. Lasers Med Sci. 2009 Mar;24(2):129
-
36.

8.

Barrios JA, Crenshaw JR, Royer TD, Davis IS. Walking shoes and laterally wedged orthoses
in the clinical management of medial tibiofemoral osteoarthritis: a one
-
year prospective controlled
trial. Knee. 2009 Mar;16(2):136
-
42.

9.

Selfe TK, Bourguignon C, Taylor AG. Effects of noninvasive interactive neurostimulation on
symptoms of osteoarthritis of the knee: a randomized, sham
-
controlled pilot study. J Altern
Complement Med. 2008 Nov;14(9):1075
-
81.

10.

Burch FX, Tarro JN, Greenberg JJ, Carroll WJ. Evaluating the benefits of patterned
stimulation in the treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee: a multi
-
center, randomized, single
-
blind,
controlled study with an in
dependent masked evaluator. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2008 Aug;16(8):865
-
72.

11.

Jubb RW, Tukmachi ES, Jones PW, Dempsey E, Waterhouse L, Brailsford S. A blinded
randomised trial of acupuncture (manual and electroacupuncture) compared with a non
-
penetratin
g
sham for the symptoms of osteoarthritis of the knee. Acupunct Med. 2008 Jun;26(2):69
-
78.

12.

Rattanachaiyanont M, Kuptniratsaikul V. No additional benefit of shortwave diathermy over
exercise program for knee osteoarthritis in peri
-
/post
-
menopausal women
: an equivalence trial.
Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2008 Jul;16(7):823
-
8.

13.

Lim B
-
W, Hinman RS, Wrigley TV, Sharma L, Bennell KL. Does knee malalignment mediate
the effects of quadriceps strengthening on knee adduction moment, pain, and function in medial
knee
osteoarthritis? A randomized controlled trial. Arthritis Care Res. 2008 Jul 15;59(7):943
-
51.

14.

Jan MH, Lin JJ, Liau JJ, Lin YF, Lin DH. Investigation of clinical effects of high
-

and low
-
resistance training for patients with knee osteoarthritis: a r
andomized controlled trial. Phys Ther. 2008
Apr;88(4):427
-
36.

15.

An B, Dai K, Zhu Z, Wang Y, Hao Y, Tang T, et al. Baduanjin alleviates the symptoms of knee
osteoarthritis. J Altern Complement Med. 2008 Mar;14(2):167
-
74.

16.

Hurley MV, Walsh NE, Mitchell
HL, Pimm TJ, Patel A, Williamson E, et al. Clinical
effectiveness of a rehabilitation program integrating exercise, self
-
management, and active coping
strategies for chronic knee pain: a cluster randomized trial. Arthritis Care Res. 2007 Oct
15;57(7):1211
-
9.

17.

Weiner DK, Rudy TE, Morone N, Glick R, Kwoh CK. Efficacy of periosteal stimulation therapy
for the treatment of osteoarthritis
-
associated chronic knee pain: an initial controlled clinical trial. J Am
Geriatr Soc. 2007 Oct;55(10):1541
-
7.

18.

Garland
D, Holt P, Harrington JT, Caldwell J, Zizic T, Cholewczynski J. A 3
-
month,
randomized, double
-
blind, placebo
-
controlled study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a highly
optimized, capacitively coupled, pulsed electrical stimulator in patients with ost
eoarthritis of the knee.
Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2007 Jun;15(6):630
-
7.

19.

Balint GP, Buchanan WW, Adam A, Ratko I, Poor L, Balint PV, et al. The effect of the thermal
mineral water of Nagybaracska on patients with knee joint osteoarthritis
-

a double bl
ind study. Clin
Rheumatol. 2007 Jun;26(6):890
-
4.

The use and reporting of WOMAC



20.

Moss P, Sluka K, Wright A. The initial effects of knee joint mobilization on osteoarthritic
hyperalgesia. Man Ther. 2007 May;12(2):109
-
18.

21.

Baker K, Goggins J, Xie H, Szumowski K, LaValley M, Hunter D
J, et al. A randomized
crossover trial of a wedged insole for treatment of knee osteoarthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 2007
Apr;56(4):1198
-
203.

22.

Durmus D, Alayli G, Canturk F. Effects of quadriceps electrical stimulation program on clinical
parameters in the
patients with knee osteoarthritis. Clin Rheumatol. 2007 May;26(5):674
-
8.

23.

Brismee JM, Paige RL, Chyu MC, Boatright JD, Hagar JM, McCaleb JA, et al. Group and
home
-
based tai chi in elderly subjects with knee osteoarthritis: a randomized controlled trial.

Clin
Rehabil. 2007 Feb;21(2):99
-
111.

24.

Perlman AI, Sabina A, Williams AL, Njike VY, Katz DL. Massage therapy for osteoarthritis of
the knee: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Intern Med. 2006 Dec 11
-
25;166(22):2533
-
8.

25.

Witt CM, Jena S, Brinkhaus B,

Liecker B, Wegscheider K, Willich SN. Acupuncture in patients
with osteoarthritis of the knee or hip: a randomized, controlled trial with an additional nonrandomized
arm. Arthritis Rheum. 2006 Nov;54(11):3485
-
93.

26.

Hay EM, Foster NE, Thomas E, Peat G, P
helan M, Yates HE, et al. Effectiveness of
community physiotherapy and enhanced pharmacy review for knee pain in people aged over 55
presenting to primary care: pragmatic randomised trial. BMJ. 2006 Nov 11;333(7576):995.

27.

Nigg BM, Emery C, Hiemstra LA.
Unstable shoe construction and reduction of pain in
osteoarthritis patients. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2006 Oct;38(10):1701
-
8.

28.

Miller GD, Nicklas BJ, Davis C, Loeser RF, Lenchik L, Messier SP. Intensive weight loss
program improves physical function in old
er obese adults with knee osteoarthritis. Obesity. 2006
Jul;14(7):1219
-
30.

29.

Witt C, Brinkhaus B, Jena S, Linde K, Streng A, Wagenpfeil S, et al. Acupuncture in patients
with osteoarthritis of the knee: a randomised trial. Lancet. 2005 Jul 9
-
15;366(9480)
:136
-
43.

30.

Thamsborg G, Florescu A, Oturai P, Fallentin E, Tritsaris K, Dissing S. Treatment of knee
osteoarthritis with pulsed electromagnetic fields: a randomized, double
-
blind, placebo
-
controlled
study. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2005 Jul;13(7):575
-
81.

31.

Christensen R, Astrup A, Bliddal H. Weight loss: the treatment of choice for knee
osteoarthritis? A randomized trial. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2005 Jan;13(1):20
-
7.

32.

Berman BM, Lao L, Langenberg P, Lee WL, Gilpin AMK, Hochberg MC. Effectiveness of
acupuncture as adjunctive therapy in osteoarthritis of the knee: a randomized, controlled trial Ann
Intern Med. 2004 Dec 21;141(12):901
-
10.

33.

Vas J, Mendez C, Perea
-
Milla E, Vega E, Panadero MD, Leon JM, et al. Acupuncture as a
complementary therapy to t
he pharmacological treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee: randomised
controlled trial. BMJ. 2004 Nov 20;329(7476):1216.

34.

McCarthy CJ, Mills PM, Pullen R, Richardson G, Hawkins N, Roberts CR, et al.
Supplementation of a home
-
based exercise programme wi
th a class
-
based programme for people
with osteoarthritis of the knees: a randomised controlled trial and health economic analysis. Health
Technol Assess. 2004 Nov;8(46):1
-
61.

35.

Mazzuca SA, Page MC, Meldrum RD, Brandt KD, Petty
-
Saphon S. Pilot study of t
he effects of
a heat
-
retaining knee sleeve on joint pain, stiffness, and function in patients with knee osteoarthritis.
Arthritis Care Res. 2004 Oct 15;51(5):716
-
21.

36.

Tascioglu F, Armagan O, Tabak Y, Corapci I, Oner C. Low power laser treatment in patie
nts
with knee osteoarthritis. Swiss Med Wkly. 2004 May 1;134(17
-
18):254
-
8.

37.

Messier SP, Loeser RF, Miller GD, Morgan TM, Rejeski WJ, Sevick MA, et al. Exercise and
dietary weight loss in overweight and obese older adults with knee osteoarthritis: the
Arthritis, Diet,
and Activity Promotion Trial. Arthritis Rheum. 2004 May;50(5):1501
-
10.

38.

Tukmachi E, Jubb R, Dempsey E, Jones P. The effect of acupuncture on the symptoms of
knee osteoarthritis
-

an open randomised controlled study. Acupunct Med. 2004 M
ar;22(1):14
-
22.

39.

Sangdee C, Teekachunhatean S, Sananpanich K, Sugandhavesa N, Chiewchantanakit S,
Pojchamarnwiputh S, et al. Electroacupuncture versus diclofenac in symptomatic treatment of
osteoarthritis of the knee: a randomized controlled trial. BMC
Complement Altern Med. 2002 Mar
21;2:3.

40.

Topp R, Woolley S, Hornyak J, Khuder S, Kahaleh B. The effect of dynamic versus isometric
resistance training on pain and functioning among adults with osteoarthritis of the knee. Arch Phys
Med Rehabil. 2002 Sep;
83(9):1187
-
95.

41.

Hinman MR, Ford J, Heyl H. Effects of static magnets on chronic knee pain and physical
function: a double
-
blind study. Altern Ther Health Med. 2002 Jul
-
Aug;8(4):50
-
5.

The use and reporting of WOMAC



42.

Pipitone N, Scott DL. Magnetic pulse treatment for knee osteoarthr
itis: a randomised, double
-
blind, placebo
-
controlled study. Curr Med Res Opin. 2001;17(3):190
-
6.

43.

Maillefert JF, Hudry C, Baron G, Kieffert P, Bourgeois P, Lechevalier D, et al. Laterally
elevated wedged insoles in the treatment of medial knee osteoarth
ritis: a prospective randomized
controlled study. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2001 Nov;9(8):738
-
45.

44.

Baker KR, Nelson ME, Felson DT, Layne JE, Sarno R, Roubenoff R. The efficacy of home
based progressive strength training in older adults with knee osteoar
thritis: a randomized controlled
trial. J Rheumatol. 2001 Jul;28(7):1655
-
65.

45.

Maurer BT, Stern AG, Kinossian B, Cook KD, Schumacher HR. Osteoarthritis of the knee:
isokinetic quadriceps exercise versus an educational intervention. Arch Phys Med Rehabil.

1999
Oct;80(10):1293
-
9.

46.

Berman BM, Singh BB, Lao L, Langenberg P, Li H, Hadhazy V, et al. A randomized trial of
acupuncture as an adjunctive therapy in osteoarthritis of the knee. Rheumatology. 1999
Apr;38(4):346
-
54.

47.

Kirkley A, Webster
-
Bogaert S,
Litchfield R, Amendola A, MacDonald S, McCalden R, et al.
The effect of bracing on varus gonarthrosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1999 Apr;81(4):539
-
48.

48.

Takeda W, Wessel J. Acupuncture for the treatment of pain of osteoarthritic knees. Arthritis
Care Res. 1
994 Sep;7(3):118
-
22.

49.

Lansdown H, Howard K, Brealey S, MacPherson H. Acupuncture for pain and osteoarthritis of
the knee: a pilot study for an open parallel
-
arm randomised controlled trial. BMC Musculoskelet
Disord. 2009;10:130.

50.

Aglamis B, Toraman N
F, Yaman H. Change of quality of life due to exercise training in knee
osteoarthritis: SF
-
36 and WOMAC. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil. 2009;22(1):43
-
8.

51.

Tishler M, Rosenberg O, Levy O, Elias I, Amit
-
Vazina M. The effect of balneotherapy on
osteoarthritis
. Is an intermittent regimen effective? Eur J Intern Med. 2004 Apr;15(2):93
-
6.

52.

Miranda
-
Filloy JA, Barbazan AC, Monteagudo Sanchez B, Grana GJ, Galdo Fernandez F.
[Effect of transcutaneous electrical quadriceps muscle stimulation in knee osteoarthritis
symptomatology]. Rehabilitacion. 2005;39(4):167
-
70.

53.

Wolsko PM, Eisenberg DM, Simon LS, Davis RB, Walleczek J, Mayo
-
Smith M, et al. Double
-
blind placebo
-
controlled trial of static magnets for the treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee: results of
a pil
ot study. Altern Ther Health Med. 2004 Mar
-
Apr;10(2):36
-
43.

54.

Kang T, Kim S, Kim S. The efficacy of low power laser therapy in patients with knee
osteoarthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2006 Jul;65 Suppl 2:233.

55.

Bilgici A, Akdeniz O, Kuru O, Ulusoy H. The effe
ct of a home
-
based exercise therapy versus
an aerobic exercise programme on pain and functional disability in patients with knee osteoarthritis.
Ann Rheum Dis. 2004 Jul;63:364
-
5.

56.

Wang C, Schmid CH, Hibberd PL, Kalish R, Roubenoff R, Rones R, et al. Tai

chi is effective
in treating knee osteoarthritis: a randomized controlled trial. Arthritis Care Res. [A Analytic].
2009;61(11):1545
-
53.

57.

Mahboob N, Sousan K, Shirzad A, Amir G, Mohammad V, Reza M, et al. The efficacy of a
topical gel prepared using Lak
e Urmia mud in patients with knee osteoarthritis. J Altern Complement
Med. 2009 Nov;15(11):1239
-
42.

58.

Fioravanti A, Iacoponi F, Bellisai B, Cantarini L, Galeazzi M. Short
-

and long
-
term effects of
spa therapy in knee osteoarthritis. Am J Phys Med Rehabil
. 2010 Feb;89(2):125
-
32.

59.

Bezalel T, Carmeli E, Katz
-
Leurer M. The effect of a group education programme on pain and
function through knowledge acquisition and home
-
based exercise among patients with knee
osteoarthritis: a parallel randomised single
-
bli
nd clinical trial. Physiotherapy. 2010 June;96(2):137
-
43.

60.

Rodrigues PT, Ferreira AF, Pereira RMR, Bonfa E, Borba EF, Fuller R. Effectiveness of
medial
-
wedge insole treatment for valgus knee osteoarthritis. Arthritis Care Res. 2008 May
15;59(5):603
-
8.

6
1.

Itoh K, Hirota S, Katsumi Y, Ochi H, Kitakoji H. Trigger point acupuncture for treatment of
knee osteoarthritis
-

a preliminary RCT for a pragmatic trial. Acupunct Med. 2008 Mar;26(1):17
-
26.

62.

Williamson L, Wyatt MR, Yein K, Melton JTK. Severe knee os
teoarthritis: a randomized
controlled trial of acupuncture, physiotherapy (supervised exercise) and standard management for
patients awaiting kn
ee replacement. Rheumatology

2007 Sep;46(9):1445
-
9.

63.

Gur A, Cosut A, Sarac AJ, Cevik R, Nas K, Uyar A. Effica
cy of different therapy regimes of
low
-
power laser in painful osteoarthritis of the knee: a double
-
blind and randomized
-
controlled trial.
Lasers Surg Med. 2003;33(5):330
-
8.

The use and reporting of WOMAC



64.

Itoh K, Hirota S, Katsumi Y, Ochi H, Kitakoji H. A pilot study on using acupunc
ture and
transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) to treat knee osteoarthritis (OA). Chin Med.
2008;3:2.

65.

Rosemffet MG, Schneeberger EE, Citera G, Sgobba ME, Laiz C, Schmulevich H, et al.
Effects of functional electrostimulation on pain,
muscular strength, and functional capacity in patients
with osteoarthritis of the knee. J Clin Rheumatol. 2004 Oct;10(5):246
-
9.