Summary of findings 2. Valgus knee brace compared with no brace for varus medial osteoarthritis of the knee.
| Valgus knee brace compared with no brace for varus medial osteoarthritis of the knee | |||||
| Patient or population: patients with varus medial osteoarthritis of the knee Settings: general hospital Intervention: valgus knee brace Comparison: no brace | |||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Number of participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | ||||
| No brace | Valgus knee brace | ||||
|
Pain
VAS: scale from 0 to 10
Follow‐up: 12 months (Higher score is worse) |
Mean pain score in control groups was 5.2 | Mean pain on walking in intervention groups was equal (0.84 lower to 0.84 higher) |
115 (1 study) |
⊕⊕⊝⊝ Lowa,b |
MD = 0.00 (95% CI ‐0.84 to 0.84) Absolute percent change = 0% (95% CI ‐8.4 to 8.4) Relative percent change = 0% (95% CI ‐1.6 to 1.6) NNTB = not statistically significant |
| Stiffness | See comment | See comment | Not estimablec | See comment | Outcome not reported in included studies |
|
Function HSS: scale from 0 to 100 Follow‐up: 12 months (Higher score is better) |
Mean function score in control groups was 69 |
Mean function in intervention groups was 1.00 higher (2.98 lower to 4.98 higher) |
110 (1 study) |
⊕⊕⊝⊝ Lowa,b |
MD = 1.00 (95% CI ‐2.98 to 4.98) Absolute percent change = 1.0% (95% CI 3.0 to 5.0) Relative percent change = 0.01% (95% CI 0.05 to 0.07) NNTB = not statistically significant |
|
Health‐related quality of life EQ‐5S: scale from 0 to 100 Follow‐up: 12 months (Higher score is better) |
Mean health‐related quality of life score in control groups was 0.6 |
Mean health‐related quality of life score in intervention groups was 0.04 lower (0.12 lower to 0.04 higher) |
117 (1 study) |
⊕⊕⊝⊝ Lowa,b |
MD = 0.04 (95% CI ‐0.12 to 0.04) Absolute percent change = 0.04% (95% CI ‐0.12 to 0.04) Relative percent change = 0.07% (95% CI ‐0.2 to 0.07) NNTB = not statistically significant |
| Treatment failure | See comment | See comment | Not estimablec | See comment | Outcome not reported in included studies |
| Serious adverse events | See comment | See comment | Not estimablec | See comment | Outcome not reported in included studies |
| Total number of adverse events (withdrawals due to lack of effect)d | Study population | 117 (1 study) |
⊕⊕⊝⊝ Lowa,b |
RR = 1.63 (95% CI 0.94 to 2.82) Absolute percent change = 15% (95% CI ‐1% to 32%) Relative percent change = 63% (95% CI ‐6% to 182%) NNTB = not statistically significant |
|
| 400 per 1000 | 246 per 1000 | ||||
| *The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. 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). CI: Confidence interval; NNTB: Number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome; RR: Risk ratio. | |||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence. High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect. Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. Low quality: 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: We are very uncertain about the estimate. | |||||
aLimitations in design and implementation of available studies suggest high likelihood of bias.
bImprecision: Results are based on only one study with 117 participants.
cNo useful data were available.
dMany participants stopped their initial treatment because of lack of effect.