Summary of findings 3. Lateral wedge insole compared with neutral insole for varus medial osteoarthritis of the knee.
| Lateral wedge insole compared with neutral insole for varus medial osteoarthritis of the knee | |||||
| Patient or population: patients with varus medial osteoarthritis of the knee Settings: general hospital Intervention: lateral wedge insole Comparison: neutral insole | |||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Number of participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | ||||
| Neutral insole | Lateral wedge insole | ||||
|
Pain
NRS: scale from 0 to 10
Follow‐up: mean 12 months (Higher score is worse) |
Mean pain on walking score in control groups was 2.6 | Mean pain on walking in intervention groups was 0.1 higher (0.45 higher to 0.65 lower) |
224 (2 studies) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ Moderatea | MD = 0.10 (95% CI ‐0.45 to 0.65) Absolute percent change = 1.0% (95% CI 4.5 to ‐6.5) Relative percent change = 3.8% (95% CI 1.7 to ‐25.0) NNTB = not statistically significant |
|
Stiffness
WOMAC: scale from 0 to 100
Follow‐up: mean 12 months (Higher score is better) |
Mean stiffness score in control groups was 41.6 |
Mean stiffness in intervention groups was 0.07 higher (4.96 lower to 5.1 higher) |
358 (3 studies) |
⊕⊕⊕⊝ Moderatea | MD = 0.07 (95% CI ‐4.96 to 5.10) Absolute percent change = 0.1% (95% CI ‐5.0 to 5.1) Relative percent change = 0.2% (95% CI ‐11.9 to 12.3) NNTB = not statistically significant |
|
Function WOMAC: scale from 0 to 100 Follow‐up: mean 12 months (Higher score is better) |
Mean function score in control groups was 36.6 |
Mean function in intervention groups was 0.94 higher (2.98 lower to 4.87 higher) |
358 (3 studies) |
⊕⊕⊕⊝ Moderatea | MD = 0.94 (95% CI ‐2.98 to 4.87) Absolute percent change = 0.9% (95% CI ‐3.0 to 4.9) Relative percent change = 2.6% (95% CI ‐8.1 to 13.3) NNTB = not statistically significant |
|
Health‐related quality of life HRQoL: scale from 0 to 1.0 Follow‐up: 12 months (Higher score is better) |
Mean health‐related quality of life score in control groups was 0.7 |
Mean health‐related quality of life score in intervention groups was 0.01 lower (0.05 lower to 0.03 higher) |
179 (1 study) |
⊕⊕⊕⊝ Moderateb | MD = 0.00 (95% CI ‐0.06 to 0.06) Absolute percent change = 1.0% (95% CI ‐5.0 to 3.0) Relative percent change = 1.4% (95% CI ‐7.1 to 4.3) 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 | See comment | See comment | Not estimablec | See comment | Outcome not reported in included studies |
| *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. | |||||
| 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. | |||||
aDowngraded for limitations in design and implementation of available studies suggesting high likelihood of bias.
bDowngraded for imprecision: Results were based on only one study with 179 participants.
cNo useful data were available.