Skip to main content
Download PDF

Minimal clinically important change of knee flexion in people with knee osteoarthritis after non-surgical interventions using a meta-analytical approach

Systematic Reviews volume 13, Article number: 50 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Minimal clinically important change (MCIC) represents the minimum patient-perceived improvement in an outcome after treatment, in an individual or within a group over time. This study aimed to determine MCIC of knee flexion in people with knee OA after non-surgical interventions using a meta-analytical approach.

Methods

Four databases (MEDLINE, Cochrane, Web of Science and CINAHL) were searched for studies of randomised clinical trials of non-surgical interventions with intervention duration of ≤ 3 months that reported change in (Δ) (mean change between baseline and immediately after the intervention) knee flexion with Δ pain or Δ function measured using tools that have established MCIC values. The risk of bias in the included studies was assessed using version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials (RoB 2). Bayesian meta-analytic models were used to determine relationships between Δ flexion with Δ pain and Δ function after non-surgical interventions and MCIC of knee flexion.

Results

Seventy-two studies (k = 72, n = 5174) were eligible. Meta-analyses included 140 intervention arms (k = 61, n = 4516) that reported Δ flexion with Δ pain using the visual analog scale (pain-VAS) and Δ function using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index function subscale (function-WOMAC). Linear relationships between Δ pain at rest-VAS (0–100 mm) with Δ flexion were − 0.29 (− 0.44; − 0.15) (β: posterior median (CrI: credible interval)). Relationships between Δ pain during activity VAS and Δ flexion were − 0.29 (− 0.41, − 0.18), and Δ pain-general VAS and Δ flexion were − 0.33 (− 0.42, − 0.23). The relationship between Δ function-WOMAC (out of 100) and Δ flexion was − 0.15 (− 0.25, − 0.07). Increased Δ flexion was associated with decreased Δ pain-VAS and increased Δ function-WOMAC. The point estimates for MCIC of knee flexion ranged from 3.8 to 6.4°.

Conclusions

The estimated knee flexion MCIC values from this study are the first to be reported using a novel meta-analytical method. The novel meta-analytical method may be useful to estimate MCIC for other measures where anchor questions are problematic.

Systematic review registration

PROSPERO CRD42022323927.

Peer Review reports

Background

Minimal clinically important change (MCIC) represents the patient-perceived improvement in an outcome after treatment [1,2,3,4], in an individual or within a group over time [5,6,7]. Impaired knee flexion range of motion (flexion) is a characteristic clinical feature in people with knee OA [8] which impacts on function, mobility, quality of life and independence [9,10,11]. Moreover, restricted knee movement is one of the ten key signs recommended for diagnosing knee OA by the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology [12]. Knee flexion is a valid and convenient measure used in clinical and research settings. Therefore, estimates of MCIC of knee flexion are necessary to interpret treatment efficacy and calculate the sample size for research studies [13, 14].

The anchor method is the most frequently used method to calculate MCIC, where values are estimated using an external scale (termed ‘anchor’) [15, 16]. The global rating of change scale is commonly used as the ‘anchor’ in studies. For example, patients are asked a transition question after treatment: ‘overall, how are your hip or knee problems now, compared to before treatment?’ with response categories ‘much better’, ‘a little better’, ‘about the same’, ‘a little worse’ and ‘much worse’ [5, 6]. The MCIC is the average pre-post change score of the sub-group of patients who responded ‘a little better’. Some studies use multiple anchors to improve the validity of results [17, 18]; for example, using cut points for the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey and the Back Depression scale [19]. However, when selecting an anchor, the anchor should be relevant to the disease condition, clinicians should be familiar with it (clinical acceptance) and there should be a relationship between the anchor and the outcome measure being evaluated for MCIC [20, 21].

Knee flexion limitation is associated with joint pain and limited function [8, 9, 22]. Non-surgical interventions (for example physiotherapy, manual therapy and exercise) could improve knee flexion, relieve pain and improve function in people with knee OA [23,24,25]. Pain relief has been associated with knee flexion improvement in people with knee OA awaiting knee replacement [26]. Increased flexion has been related to improved function in people with knee OA after total knee replacement [27]. Therefore, change in (Δ, mean change between baseline and immediately after the intervention) knee flexion after treatment may be associated with Δ pain and Δ function.

The MCIC of knee flexion in people with knee OA has not been previously reported. MCIC estimates for pain and function in knee OA after non-surgical interventions have been established for several patient-reported outcome measures. These include the WOMAC function subscale (function-WOMAC) and the Visual Analogue Scale for pain (pain-VAS) [28, 29]. We hypothesised that the relationship between Δ flexion and Δ pain and/or Δ function measured by tools with known MCIC can be used to estimate the MCIC of knee flexion.

Therefore, this study aimed to use meta-analysis to infer the MCIC of knee flexion, using relationships between Δ knee flexion and Δ pain and/or Δ function measured by tools with known MCIC in people with knee OA after non-surgical interventions.

Methods

We estimated the MCIC of knee flexion using a meta-analytical approach based on anchor method concepts. Data were obtained from published studies through a rapid systematic review, which was designed and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement [30] and Cochrane rapid review guideline [31]. The protocol was registered on PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42022323927).

Literature search

We searched in databases MEDLINE (EBSCO), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Statistics in practice Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) from inception up to September 2023. A comprehensive search strategy was developed (Additional file 1) to capture all relevant articles, and database-specific MESH terms were used. We limited our search to studies published in English, and grey literature was not searched. The records were exported to EndNote version X9.2 for reference management.

Study screening

Covidence software (Covidence systematic review software, Veritas Health Innovation, Melbourne, Australia (www.covidence.org)) was used to manage the selection process. Records identified in the search were uploaded, and duplicates were removed. Two independent reviewers screened titles, abstracts and then full texts (D. S., T. S., J. C.). Disagreements were resolved by discussion with a third reviewer.

Study selection criteria

We included randomised clinical trials of people with knee OA (diagnosed clinically or radiographically). Studies were excluded if the study included participants with knee OA together with participants with other disorders or OA in other joints that were not reported separately (Table 1). Studies included non-surgical interventions with a treatment duration of ≤ 3 months. We limited studies of treatment duration ≤ 3 months because estimates of MCIC are sensitive to treatment duration and follow-up time [13]. Studies were excluded if they reported on surgical interventions.

Table 1 Eligibility criteria of included studies
Full size table

We included studies that reported Δ knee flexion as well as Δ pain or Δ function outcomes measured using tools with established MCICs [32]. The tools included intermittent and constant osteoarthritis pain, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, Lower Extremity Functional Scale, Numeric Pain Rating Scale, Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System, and 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey, VAS and WOMAC. We included studies that measured flexion using a universal goniometer, electrogoniometer or inclinometer in a static position as flexion assessed using the above tools is considered a valid and accessible outcome measure in knee OA [33,34,35]. Studies that assessed knee flexion during functional activities (for example gait, squatting, stair climbing) were excluded as they do not consider the full flexion range. Studies which reported Δ knee flexion as well as Δ pain or Δ function outcomes were included. However, if studies did not report mean change but reported mean values of pre-intervention (baseline) and post-interventions, they also were included. Studies that only reported effect sizes, median measures and only figures (did not report variance) were excluded.

The risk-of-bias assessment

The risk of bias in the included studies was assessed using Version-2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials (RoB 2) [36]. This instrument comprises five domains: bias arising from the randomisation process, bias due to deviations from intended interventions, bias due to missing outcome data, bias in the measurement of the outcome and bias in the selection of the reported result. Judgements for these domains and the overall risk of bias were estimated as ‘low, ‘high’ risk of bias or ‘unclear’. The review team considered the aim of the risk-of-bias assessment to assess the effects of assignment to intervention (the ‘intention-to-treat’ effect). When the assessment method of knee flexion is not reported in the primary article, the reference article or study protocol was checked to obtain that information. The risk of bias in all included studies was assessed by the principal investigator (D. S.), and a random sample of 35% of studies had a second review (T. S., J. C.) to improve the accuracy [37].

Data extraction

Data extraction included the following: study design, sample size, characteristics of participants and details of the interventions and outcomes. We extracted mean change before and immediately after the intervention (Δ) and standard error (SE) of flexion, pain and function outcomes. If studies did not report mean change (inferential statistics), we extracted mean values of pre-intervention (baseline) and post-intervention (descriptive statistics). Knee flexion change was extracted for the index knee (the most affected knee). If the index knee could not be identified (for example in bilateral knee OA), both right and left knee flexion data were extracted. The principal investigator (D. S.) performed data extraction.

Data analysis

First, we standardised Δ knee flexion of the index knee, Δ pain and Δ function. Where studies reported flexion data in both knees, average flexion was calculated. If a study did not report Δ flexion, it was calculated by subtracting pre-mean and post-mean according to Chapter 6.5.2.8 in the Cochrane handbook [38]. While this is likely to overstate the data (assuming those values are independent of each other as pre-mean is not predictive of post-mean), this is the only possible way to calculate the mean change using the given data of most studies. If the SE of mean change was not reported, it was calculated from standard deviation (SD) or confidence intervals (CI) using standard methods [38].

If studies reported pain-VAS in different scales, for example 0 to 10 mm or 0 to 100 mm, all the pain-VAS scores were standardised into a 0 to 100 mm scale where 0 = no pain at all and 100 = worst pain. All function-WOMAC scores were standardised to a 0 to 100 scale (0 = best function and 100 = worst function) where reported as 0 to 17 or 0 to 65.

Second, meta-analyses were performed to estimate the relationships between Δ flexion and Δ pain and/or Δ function. When a study had two or more interventions, each intervention arm was included as a separate cohort because each cohort was independent. However, study arms without interventions, for example waiting for treatment, were excluded. When studies reported both active and passive flexion, we included active flexion data only to avoid overestimating the same participants [38]. For this study, pain was examined in three categories: rest, during activity and general. Where pain was reported as ‘pain’, ‘pain intensity’ or ‘pain level’ without qualifiers, they were categorised to pain-general.

Only non-surgical intervention studies were included, but they comprised pharmacological, non-pharmacological or mixed interventions (type of interventions). Knee flexion can be measured in supine or prone (position) and actively or passively (mode). However, some studies did not provide this level in detail (missing data). Therefore, we examined the sensitivity of the data to these factors using data visualisation techniques and determined whether all data could be pooled or whether it should be analysed separately. Where there was no apparent effect due to these factors, we pooled knee flexion data regardless of the type of intervention, position or mode. In this way, the papers with missing data with regard to position or mode could be included in the pooled analysis.

To estimate relationships between Δ flexion and Δ pain and/or Δ function, meta-analytical models were developed using ‘R’ software [39] using the ‘brms’ package [40]. Separate analyses were conducted for each relationship, e.g. Δ flexion and Δ pain at rest and Δ flexion and Δ pain during activity. The Bayesian hierarchical models were used to determine relationships between variables: Δ flexion (Y, response) with Δ pain or Δ function (X, predictor). Errors-in-variables models were developed because both the predictor and the response variables have measurement errors [41]. We considered flexion as the response variable and pain or function as predictors for the convenience of implementing MCIC of knee flexion.

Model in general form

$$\Delta flexion\sim {N({\beta }_{0},{\tau }_{study})+(\beta }_{pain}\cdot \Delta pain)+N(0,{\tau }_{arm}),{\Delta pain}_{j}\sim N({{\mu }_{pain}}_{j},{{\sigma }_{pain}}_{j})$$

In this model, \(\Delta flexion\) and \(\Delta pain\) have uncertainty components, and \({\beta }_{0}\) is the population intercept. \({\tau }_{study}\) represents the heterogeneity between-study variation, and \({\tau }_{arm}\) represents the heterogeneity between intervention arms.

\({\Delta pain}_{j}\sim N({{\mu }_{pain}}_{j},{{\sigma }_{pain}}_{j})\): Latent variable representing the true value of the j (any given study) is being estimated based on the mean (μ) and standard error (σ). The above model is expressed as the following code.

Example model

$$(\mathrm{bf}\ (\mathrm{flexion}.\mathrm{change}\ |\mathrm{se}\ (\mathrm{SE}\_\mathrm{flexion}.\mathrm{change})\sim 1 +\mathrm{ me}\ (\mathrm{function}.\mathrm{change},\mathrm{ SE}\_\mathrm{function}.\mathrm{change}) + (1|\mathrm{Study}) + (1|\mathrm{Study}:\mathrm{Groups}))$$

In this model syntax (Bayesian regression model), ‘(1|Study) + (1|Study:Groups)’ indicates intervention arms (included hierarchical or ‘random’ effects), which are correlated across responses (univariate-normal distribution of intercepts).

Priors were intended to be weakly informative. The coefficient prior β was \(\mathrm{N}(\mathrm{0,1})\); on the response scale, this suggests a maximal effect of a two-unit change in flexion for a one-unit change in the predictor. The maximum physiologic flexion range of the knee joint is about 135°. We presumed that the maximal effect of 60° in flexion 60/100 change in the pain and 60/100 function could be possible. Posterior mean and credible intervals (CrI) were implemented and visualised for all analyses using the packages ‘ggdist’ [42] and ‘ggplot2’ [43]. Heterogeneity had a normal prior distribution with mean and standard deviation (\(\tau\), standard deviation of the between-study variability and between intervention arms). \(\tau\) had a half-Cauchy hyperprior, HC (0, 1), intended to be weakly informative [44]. Finally, the goodness of fit of the model was assessed by a posterior predictor check. Relationships are presented as the slope (β), intercepts and heterogeneity between studies and intervention arms with 90% CrI.

Third, the MCIC of flexion was estimated if only the uncertainty of the above relationships was sufficiently low. To estimate the MCIC of knee flexion, we post-processed the above models with the established MCIC estimates for pain and function. For example, MCIC of pain-VAS = − 19.9 (− 21.6 to − 17.9) in a 0–100-mm scale [45], MCIC of function-WOMAC (out of 100) = − 9.1 (− 10.5 to − 7.5) [45], − 17.13 (− 20.07 to 14.19) [29] and − 17.02 (− 20.15 to − 13.9) [29].

MCIC estimates for knee flexion using only reported-supine knee flexion data

However, as the supine position is frequently considered the appropriate knee flexion measurement position [46], a separate analysis was performed, including only reported-supine knee flexion data. First, relationships between Δ supine-active flexion with Δ pain and Δ function were established, and MCIC estimates of supine-active flexion were estimated as above. Second, relationships of pooled-supine flexion (mode = supine and position = active, passive or position not reported) with Δ pain and Δ function were also established. Then, MCIC estimates of pooled-supine flexion were estimated as above.

Results

Study selection

The search yielded 7452 records; 4860 records were screened after removing duplicates. Title and abstract screening yielded 428 records. After screening full texts, 72 studies (k = 72, sample n = 5174) (Fig. 1) were identified that reported Δ flexion with Δ pain or Δ function. A list of references for included studies is available in Additional file 2.

Fig. 1
figure 1

PRISMA flow diagram

Full size image

There was a sufficient number of studies [37] to determine the relationships between Δ flexion with Δ pain using VAS (pain-VAS) and Δ function using WOMAC function subscale (function-WOMAC) only. Therefore, meta-analyses included 61 studies with 140 study arms (k = 61, n = 4516) that reported Δ flexion and Δ pain-VAS or Δ function-WOMAC. Eleven studies (Table 2) reported Δ pain or Δ function using other tools, for example Numeric Pain Rating Scale and Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score.

Table 2 Study characteristics
Full size table

The risk of bias in included studies

The overall risk of bias was low in 47.2% of the studies, while 45.8% had some concerns, and five studies (7%) were of high risk of bias (Fig. 2, Additional file 3). The risk of bias arising from randomisation was low in 61.1% of the studies, while 36.1% had some concerns, and 2.8% of studies were of high risk. The risk of bias due to deviations from intended interventions was low for 55.6%, while 44.4% had some concerns. The risk of bias due to missing outcome data was low in 59.7% of studies, and others (40.3%) had some concerns. The risk bias in measuring the outcomes (63.9%) and selecting the reported results was low (87.5%) in most studies. Therefore, we included all the studies in the data analysis.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Risk of bias in included studies using RoB 2 tool [35]

Full size image

Study characteristics of included studies

All the studies were individually randomised parallel group trials. The mean age ranged from 49 to 71 years. The interventions used in the included studies were exercise, kinesio taping, laser therapy, electrotherapy, shock wave therapy and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. The treatment duration ranged from one session to 3 months.

Changes in knee flexion, pain and function after interventions

The mean Δ knee flexion ranged between − 6.4 and 59.8°. Δ pain-VAS (/100) at rest, during activity and general ranged from 8.0 to − 39.0, − 7.8 to − 58.8 and 12.8 to − 59.5, respectively. The Δ function-WOMAC ranged from 8.8 to − 41.5/100 (Additional file 4A, B).

Relationship between change in flexion with changes in pain and function

After examining the sensitivity of knee flexion data to type of interventions, position and mode using data visualisation techniques, we identified there was no apparent effect due to these factors (Fig. 3A, B, C). Therefore, we pooled knee flexion data regardless of the type of intervention, position or mode.

Fig. 3
figure 3

A Data distribution of mean change in knee flexion between different nonsurgical interventions. Pharm, pharmacological interventions; Non_pharm, nonpharmacological interventions; mixed, both pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions; flexion.change, mean change between baseline and immediately after the intervention. B Data distribution of mean change in knee flexion between different knee flexion measurement positions. NR, measurement position not reported; prone, prone position; supine, supine position; flexion.change, mean change between baseline and immediately after the intervention. C Data distribution of mean change in knee flexion between different methods of flexion assessment (mode). Active, measurement mode-active flexion; NR, measurement mode not reported; passive, measurement mode-passive flexion; flexion.change, mean change between baseline and immediately after the intervention

Full size image

Meta-analyses included 140 intervention arms of 61 studies (n = 4516) that reported Δ flexion with Δ pain-VAS or Δ function-WOMAC. Bayesian meta-analytic models found linear relationships between Δ flexion with Δ pain and Δ function (Table 3).

Table 3 Parameter estimates for relationships between change in flexion with changes in pain and function
Full size table

Linear relationships between AQ6Δ pain at rest (0-100mm VAS) with Δ flexion was -0.29, (-0.44; -0.15) (β (CrI)). Relationships between Δ pain during activity VAS and Δ flexion were − 0.29 (− 0.41, − 0.18), and Δ general pain-VAS and Δ flexion were − 0.33 (− 0.42, − 0.23). The relationship between Δ function-WOMAC out of 100) and Δ flexion was − 0.15 (− 0.25, − 0.07).

Increased Δ flexion was associated with decreased Δ pain-VAS and increased Δ function-WOMAC. Since the uncertainty of the above relationships was sufficiently low MCIC of knee flexion, using all the above relationships was estimated (Table 4).

Table 4 Parameter estimates for MCIC knee flexion
Full size table

Point estimates of MCIC of knee flexion ranged from 3.8 to 6.4° with a total range of 90% CrI 1.6 to 9.2° (Figs. 4A, B, C and 5A, B, C).

Fig. 4
figure 4

Relationships between changes in A pain at rest, B during activity, C pain-general with change in flexion. X-axis represents the change in pain (mean change-pain ± standard error (SE)), and Y-axis represents the change in flexion (mean flexion change ± SE). Points represent the observations (estimates from the underlying studies), with horizontal and vertical bars representing the approximate standard error for the predictor and response variable, respectively. The solid line represents the posterior mean of the relationship between the predictor and the response for a hypothetical average study, and the grey field is 90% credible interval (uncertainty), from the meta-regression errors-in-variables model. The vertical dotted lines represent the minimal clinically important change (MCIC) from reference study and its SE (19.9 mm ± 0.94) [45], demonstrating the inference of the corresponding MCIC for flexion

Full size image
Fig. 5
figure 5

Relationship between change in function with change in flexion. X-axis represents the change in function (mean change function ± standard error (SE)), and Y-axis represents the change in flexion (mean flexion change ± SE). Points represent the observations (estimates from the underlying studies), with horizontal and vertical bars representing the approximate standard error for the predictor and response variable, respectively. The solid line represents the posterior mean of the relationship between the predictor and the response for a hypothetical average study, and the grey field is 90% credible interval (uncertainty), from the meta-regression errors-in-variables model. The vertical dotted lines represent the minimal clinically important change (MCIC) from reference study _and its SE: A − 9.1 + 0.77 [45], B − 17.13 + _1.5 [29], C − 17.02 + _1.59 [29] demonstrating the inference of the corresponding MCIC for flexion

Full size image

Relationships for knee flexion with changes in pain and function using knee flexion measured in supine

Due to missing data, a few studies only reported that they measured knee flexion in supine. There were data on supine-active flexion and mode = not reported, and there were no mode = passive data. First, relationships between Δ supine-active flexion with Δ pain-VAS and Δ function-WOMAC were estimated. Second, relationships between Δ pooled-supine flexion (position = supine, mode = regardless, active plus not reported) with Δ pain-VAS and Δ function-WOMAC were estimated (Table 5).

Table 5 Parameter estimates for relationships considering supine flexion
Full size table

Considering Δ supine-active flexion data, linear relationships between Δ supine-active flexion with Δ pain-general VAS were − 0.89 (− 1.09, − 0.55) (β (CrI)). Increased Δ supine-active flexion is associated with decreased Δ pain-general VAS. The uncertainty of the above estimate was only sufficiently low; MCIC considering supine-active flexion was only estimated based on this relationship (Table 5).

Considering Δ pooled-supine flexion data, linear relationships between Δ pooled-supine flexion and Δ pain-during activity were − 0.24 (− 0.37, − 0.12) (β (CrI)), and Δ pooled-supine flexion and Δ pain-general were − 0.61 (− 0.93, − 0.30). Δ pooled-supine flexion were associated with decreased Δ pain-during activity, and Δ pain-general and the uncertainty of these relationships were only sufficiently low. Therefore, MCIC estimates considering pooled-supine flexion were estimated based on these two relationships (Table 6).

Table 6 Parameter estimates for MCIC of knee flexion using only reported supine knee flexion
Full size table

Estimated MCIC for knee flexion measured in supine

Point estimates of MCIC of knee flexion considering supine-active flexion are 12.8° (− 0.0°, 26.3°) (β (CrI)).

Point estimates of MCIC of knee flexion considering pooled-supine flexion ranged from 1.7 to 11.3° with a total range of 90% CrI − 0.5 to 20.1° (Figs. 6, 7). However, there were still no sufficient studies to draw strong conclusions due to the missing data.

Fig. 6
figure 6

Relationship between change in pain-general with change in supine-active flexion. X-axis represents the change in pain (mean change-pain ± standard error (SE)), and Y-axis represents the change in flexion (mean flexion change ± SE). Points represent the observations (estimates from the underlying studies), with horizontal and vertical bars representing the approximate standard error for the predictor and response variable, respectively. The solid line represents the posterior mean of the relationship between the predictor and the response for a hypothetical average study, and the grey field is 90% credible interval (uncertainty), from the meta-regression errors-in-variables model. The vertical dotted lines represent the minimal clinically important change (MCIC) from reference study and its SE (19.9 mm ± 0.94) [45], demonstrating the inference of the corresponding MCIC for flexion

Full size image
Fig. 7
figure 7

Relationships between changes in pain. A During activity. B Pain-general with change in pooled-supine flexion. X-axis represents the change in pain (mean change-pain ± standard error (SE)), and Y-axis represents the change in flexion (mean flexion change ± SE). Points represent the observations (estimates from the underlying studies), with horizontal and vertical bars representing the approximate standard error for the predictor and response variable, respectively. The solid line represents the posterior mean of the relationship between the predictor and the response for a hypothetical average study, and the grey field is 90% credible interval (uncertainty), from the meta-regression errors-in-variables model. The vertical dotted lines represent the minimal clinically important change (MCIC) from reference study and its SE (19.9 mm ± 0.94) [45], demonstrating the inference of the corresponding MCIC for flexion

Full size image

Discussion

This study provided estimates for MCIC of knee flexion using a meta-analytical approach. We used an innovative method to estimate the MCIC of knee flexion using relationships between Δ flexion with Δ pain and Δ function. We found that the point estimates of knee flexion MCIC ranged from 3.8 to 6.4°. Our MCIC estimates are specific to knee flexion in people with knee OA after non-surgical intervention with an intervention duration of ≤ 3 months. To our knowledge, this is the first study that has implemented relationships between Δ flexion with Δ pain and Δ function and estimated MCIC of knee flexion in people with knee OA. We assumed our methodology was robust, as MCIC was estimated only after the strength of the relationships were assured.

Our estimate for knee flexion MCIC for people with knee OA (3.8 to 6.4°) equates to approximately 3 to 5% of full knee flexion (considering 135° full flexion) [117]. A discussion paper on MCIC stated that MCIC of an outcome measure generally ranged between 6 and 10% of the total score regardless of the outcome measure [118]. Therefore, our estimate is lower than might be expected. However, the estimates are for an angle rather than a survey-based measure, and so the conditions governing these measurements may be different.

While MCIC estimates are specific to the disease condition and outcome measure [4, 119], no previous studies have provided MCIC for knee flexion. One previous study [120] attempted to determine the MCIC of maximum knee flexion during walking using a 3D motion analysis system in people with knee OA following knee arthroplasty; however, they were unable to establish estimates as no association was found between flexion and the anchor questions. This may be because walking requires less than 90° of flexion [117], and so range limitation is less likely to affect walking.

The relationships we found between Δ flexion with Δ pain and Δ function agree with previous studies that reported that flexion improvement was associated with pain relief and functional gain [26]. However, while some studies have found that flexion improvement is related to pain relief [8] and functional improvement [9, 10], others concluded that there is no strong relationship between flexion with pain and function [121]. They suggested that the reason might be that if the patients have already achieved a functional range of motion (more than 110°), flexion improvement may be less important [121].

There are several strengths of this study. Our estimates of MCIC are based on several relationships of Δ flexion with Δ pain and Δ function rather than using just one domain. We combined patient-reported outcome measures (pain and function) with physical outcomes (flexion data), thereby increasing the robustness of our estimates. This accords with recommendations for a holistic approach in disability measures with a combination of physical and patient-reported outcomes [35, 122]. This method for estimating an MCIC may be useful where it is difficult to formulate sensitive anchor questions or where recall bias is an issue [16]. For example, kinematic parameters may be difficult to interpret in an anchor question, and recall bias may be an issue for longer-term outcome measurement. However, any bias in the reference MCIC (MCIC of pain and function in this study) will carry forward into the study estimates (propagation of error) [123], and careful selection of reference estimates should be made.

The results of this study should be interpreted considering its limitations. In contrast to the anchor method, we did not directly acknowledge the patients’ perceptions. Since this is a meta-analytical approach study, these results are based on the results of included studies in this review. Therefore, publication bias and missing data may affect the results. We attempted to estimate MCIC considering only supine flexion data but no adequate studies to draw strong conclusions due to the missing data. We included studies published in English, and grey literature was not searched. Though MCIC can be affected by baseline knee flexion [124], we did not address specific baseline knee flexion, which might have affected the results. Even though we included non-surgical interventions with a treatment duration of ≤ 3 months and addressed the comparability of data before calculating the relationships, clinical variability and confounding caused by between-study factors still may affect the results of this study. Since we used the population level data, this may falsely infer individual data. Furthermore, substantial care has been invested in the internal validity of the analyses leading to MCIC estimates, with respect to data extraction and collation, model and prior specification and model goodness-of-fit evaluation. Much of this information is available to the reader, and we believe that particularly the graphical presentation conveys clearly and transparently the information supporting the results. However, we must note that the external validity of these MCIC estimates is simply unknown. The specific MCIC estimates obtained here have not been externally validated by reference to a repeated study of independent data. Further, we are not aware that meta-analytic modelling of correlated responses has been previously applied for MCIC determination, i.e. the whole approach is novel, so we simply cannot know how well MCIC estimated in this manner would generalise. Though we have carefully considered and evaluated the soundness of the statistical modelling, and from a ground-up perspective the methodology makes sense, replication for similar questions would be necessary to make any judgment about its performance. This is necessarily true for studies using exploratory, rather than established, methods.

Instrument factors should be considered when applying these estimates in clinical and research settings. Flexion range of motion can be measured using a range of goniometers. The most commonly used ‘universal goniometer’ has the minimum detectable change (MDC) ranging from 5 to 10° [125, 126]. However, the digital goniometer is more precise where the MDC is about 2° [127]. If MCIC is less than the MDC of the instrument, the minimal effect cannot be precisely measured using that instrument though the impact is meaningful to the patient [7]. Therefore, it is recommended to use a more precise instrument to measure knee flexion in knee OA studies.

In conclusion, estimated knee flexion MCIC values can be used in clinical and research studies to evaluate treatment efficacy. Though our results are specific to people with knee OA after non-surgical interventions, it is recommended that future studies be undertaken to estimate MCIC as a function of the severity of the knee OA. Our novel meta-analytical approach may be useful for estimating MCIC for other outcome measures where anchor questions are problematic.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article and its additional files.

Abbreviations

OA:

Osteoarthritis

ROM:

Range of motion

MCIC:

Minimal clinically meaningful change

WOMAC:

Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index

VAS:

Visual analogue scale

PRISMA:

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses

RoB 2:

Version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials

SE:

Standard error

SD:

Standard deviation

\(\uptau\) :

Heterogeneity variance

CrI:

Credible intervals

References

  1. de Vet HC, Ostelo RW, Terwee CB, et al. Minimally important change determined by a visual method integrating an anchor-based and a distribution-based approach. Qual Life Res. 2007;16(1):131–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH. Measurement of health status: ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials. 1989;10(4):407–15.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Wells G, Anderson J, Beaton D, et al. Minimal clinically important difference module: summary, recommendations, and research agenda. J Rheumatol. 2001;28(2):452–4.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. King MT. A point of minimal important difference (MID): a critique of terminology and methods. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2011;11(2):171–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Clement ND, Bardgett M, Weir D, et al. What is the minimum clinically important difference for the WOMAC index after TKA? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2018;476(10):2005–14.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Beard DJ, Harris K, Dawson J, et al. Meaningful changes for the Oxford hip and knee scores after joint replacement surgery. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;68(1):73–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. de Vet HC, Terwee CB. The minimal detectable change should not replace the minimal important difference. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(7):804–5 (Author reply 806).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Holla JFM, Steultjens MPM, van der Leeden M, et al. Determinants of range of joint motion in patients with early symptomatic osteoarthritis of the hip and/or knee: an exploratory study in the CHECK cohort. Osteoarthr Cartil. 2011;19(4):411–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Lin YC, Davey RC, Cochrane T. Tests for physical function of the elderly with knee and hip osteoarthritis. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2001;11(5):280–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Steultjens MPM, Dekker J, van Baar ME, et al. Range of joint motion and disability in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee or hip. Rheumatology. 2000;39(9):955–61.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Benner RW, Shelbourne KD, Bauman SN, et al. Knee osteoarthritis: alternative range of motion treatment. Orthop Clin North Am. 2019;50(4):425–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Zhang W, Doherty M, Peat G, et al. EULAR evidence-based recommendations for the diagnosis of knee osteoarthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2010;69(3):483–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Katz NP, Paillard FC, Ekman E. Determining the clinical importance of treatment benefits for interventions for painful orthopedic conditions. J Orthop Surg Res. 2015;3(10):24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Wright A, Hannon J, Hegedus EJ, et al. Clinimetrics corner: a closer look at the minimal clinically important difference (MCID). J Man Manip Ther. 2012;20(3):160–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Copay AG, Subach BR, Glassman SD, et al. Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: a review of concepts and methods. Spine J. 2007;7(5):541–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Devji T, Carrasco-Labra A, Guyatt G. Mind the methods of determining minimal important differences: three critical issues to consider. Evid Based Ment Health. 2021;24(2):77–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Yost KJ, Eton DT, Garcia SF, et al. Minimally important differences were estimated for six patient-reported outcomes measurement information system-cancer scales in advanced-stage cancer patients. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(5):507–16.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Yost KJ, Sorensen MV, Hahn EA, et al. Using multiple anchor- and distribution-based estimates to evaluate clinically meaningful change on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Biologic Response Modifiers (FACT-BRM) instrument. Value Health. 2005;8(2):117–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Lee AC, Driban JB, Price LL, et al. Responsiveness and minimally important differences for 4 patient-reported outcomes measurement information system short forms: physical function, pain interference, depression, and anxiety in knee osteoarthritis. J Pain. 2017;18(9):1096–110.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Revicki D, Hays RD, Cella D, et al. Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61(2):102–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Musoro JZ, Coens C, Fiteni F, et al. Minimally important differences for interpreting EORTC QLQ-C30 scores in patients with advanced breast cancer. JNCI cancer spectrum. 2019;3(3):pkz037.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Hilfiker R, Jüni P, Nüesch E, et al. Association of radiographic osteoarthritis, pain on passive movement and knee range of motion: a cross-sectional study. Man Ther. 2015;20(2):361–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Weleslassie GG, Temesgen MH, Alamer A, et al. Effectiveness of mobilization with movement on the management of knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Pain Res Manag. 2021;2021:8815682.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Kaya Mutlu E, Ercin E, Razak Ozdıncler A, et al. A comparison of two manual physical therapy approaches and electrotherapy modalities for patients with knee osteoarthritis: a randomized three arm clinical trial. Physiother Theory Pract. 2018;34(8):600–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Alkhawajah HA, Alshami AM. The effect of mobilization with movement on pain and function in patients with knee osteoarthritis: a randomized double-blind controlled trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2019;20(1):452.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Bennett D, Hanratty B, Thompson N, et al. The influence of pain on knee motion in patients with osteoarthritis undergoing total knee arthroplasty. Orthopedics. 2009;32(4).

  27. Ha C-W, Park Y-B, Song Y-S, et al. Increased range of motion is important for functional outcome and satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty in Asian patients. J Arthr. 2016;31(6):1199–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Tubach F, Ravaud P, Baron G, et al. Evaluation of clinically relevant states in patient reported outcomes in knee and hip osteoarthritis: the patient acceptable symptom state. Ann Rheum Dis. 2005;64(1):34–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Ornetti P, Dougados M, Paternotte S, et al. Validation of a numerical rating scale to assess functional impairment in hip and knee osteoarthritis: comparison with the WOMAC function scale. Ann Rheum Dis. 2011;70(5):740–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372: n71.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Garritty C GG, Nussbaumer-Streit B, King VJ, Hamel C, Kamel C, L A, Stevens A. Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2020;20(31146-X.).

  32. Silva MDC, Diana MP, Angela MF, Jacqui MC, Jennie MS. Minimal important change and difference for knee osteoarthritis outcome measurement tools after non-surgical interventions: a systematic review. BMJ Open. 2023;13(5):e063026.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Dos Santos RA, Derhon V, Brandalize M, et al. Evaluation of knee range of motion: correlation between measurements using a universal goniometer and a smartphone goniometric application. J Bodyw Mov Ther. 2017;21(3):699–703.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Piriyaprasarth P, Morris ME. Psychometric properties of measurement tools for quantifying knee joint position and movement: a systematic review. The Knee. 2007;14(1):2–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Epskamp S, Dibley H, Ray E, et al. Range of motion as an outcome measure for knee osteoarthritis interventions in clinical trials: an integrated review. Phys Ther Rev. 2020;25(5–6):462–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2019;28(366):l4898.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Haby MM, Chapman E, Clark R, et al. What are the best methodologies for rapid reviews of the research evidence for evidence-informed decision making in health policy and practice: a rapid review. Health Res Policy Syst. 2016;14(1):83.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Higgins JPT CJ, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. version 6.0 ed. 2019.

  39. Team RC. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria. 4.2.1. R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2021.

  40. Bürkner P-C. brms: an R package for Bayesian multilevel models using stan. J Stat Soft. 2017;80(1):1–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Dellaportas P, Stephens DA. Bayesian analysis of errors-in-variables regression models. Biometrics. 1995;51(3):1085–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Kay M. ggdist: Visualizations of distributions and uncertainty. 2022.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Wickham H. ggplot2: elegant graphics for data analysis. New York: Springer-Verlag; 2016.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  44. Williams DR, Rast P, Bürkner P-C, editors. Bayesian meta-analysis with weakly informative prior distributions. 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Tubach F, Ravaud P, Baron G, et al. Evaluation of clinically relevant changes in patient reported outcomes in knee and hip osteoarthritis: the minimal clinically important improvement. Ann Rheum Dis. 2005;64(1):29–45.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Hancock GE, Hepworth T, Wembridge K. Accuracy and reliability of knee goniometry methods. J Exp Orthop. 2018;5(1):46–46.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Abolhasani M, Halabchi F, Honarpishe R, Cleland JA, Hakakzadeh A. Effects of kinesiotape on pain, range of motion, and functional status in patients with osteoarthritis: a randomized controlled trial. J Exerc Rehabil. 2019;15(4):603–9.

  48. Alfredo PP, Bjordal JM, Dreyer SH, Meneses SRF, Zaguetti G, Ovanessian V, Fukuda TY, Junior WS, Martins RÁBL, Casarotto RA, et al. Efficacy of low level laser therapy associated with exercises in knee osteoarthritis: a randomized double-blind study. Clin Rehabil. 2012;26(6):523–33.

  49. Alfredo PP, Junior WS, Casarotto RA. Efficacy of continuous and pulsed therapeutic ultrasound combined with exercises for knee osteoarthritis: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Rehabil. 2020;34(4):480–90.

  50. Altınbilek T, Murat S, Yumuşakhuylu Y, İçağasıoğlu A. Osteopathic manipulative treatment improves function and relieves pain in knee osteoarthritis: A single-blind, randomized-controlled trial. Turk J Phys Med Rehabil. 2018;64(2):114–20.

  51. Alpay K, Sahin M. Effects of basic body awareness therapy on pain, balance, muscle strength and functionality in knee osteoarthritis: a randomised preliminary trial. Disabil Rehabil. 2022;1–8.

  52. Arslan Y, Kul A. Effectiveness Comparison of Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy and Conventional Physical Therapy Modalities in Primary Knee Osteoarthritis. Turk Osteoporoz Dergisi. 2022;28(2):83–90.

  53. Ashraf A, Riaz S, Arslan HM, Khan RR, Naeem R, Malik A: Effects of Low Level Laser Therapy on Knee Pain and Functional Status among Patients with Knee Osteoarthritis. Pak J Med Health Sci. 2022;16(3):863–6.

  54. Askari A, Ravansalar SA, Naghizadeh MM, Mosavat SH, Khodadoost M, Jazani AM, Hashempur MH. The efficacy of topical sesame oil in patients with knee osteoarthritis: A randomized double-blinded active-controlled noninferiority clinical trial. Complement Ther Med. 2019;47:102183.

  55. Assar S, Gandomi F, Mozafari M, Sohaili F. The effect of Total resistance exercise vs. aquatic training on self-reported knee instability, pain, and stiffness in women with knee osteoarthritis: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Sports Sci Med Rehabil. 2020;12:27.

  56. Aydoğdu O, Sari Z, Yurdalan SU, Polat MG. Clinical outcomes of kinesio taping applied in patients with knee osteoarthritis: A randomized controlled trial. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil. 2017;30(5):1045–51.

  57. Babaskin DV, Litvinova TM, Babaskina LI. The Effect of the Phytocomplex Electrophoresis on the Clinical Symptomatology and Quality of Life of Patients with the Knee Joint Osteoarthritis. Open Access Macedonian J Med Sci. 2019;7(14):2236–41.

  58. Benedetti MG, Boccia G, Cavazzuti L, Magnani E, Mariani E, Rainoldi A, Casale R. Localized muscle vibration reverses quadriceps muscle hypotrophy and improves physical function: a clinical and electrophysiological study. Int J Rehabil Res. 2017;40(4):339–46.

  59. Bhore P, Shinde S. Effect of multi-component exercises program on pain-related gait adaptations among individuals with osteoarthritis of the knee joint. J Educ Health Promot. 2023;12(1).

  60. Peréz Busquier M, Calero E, Rodríguez M, Castellon Arce P, Bermudez A, Linares LF, Mesa J, Ffernandez Crisostomos C, Garcia C, Garcia Lopez A, et al. Comparison of aceclofenac with piroxicam in the treatment of osteoarthritis. Clin Rheumatol. 1997;16(2):154–9.

  61. Coleman S, Briffa NK, Carroll G, Inderjeeth C, Cook N, McQuade J. A randomised controlled trial of a self-management education program for osteoarthritis of the knee delivered by health care professionals. Arthritis Res Therapy. 2012;14(1):R21.

  62. Costa A, Cunha Teixeira V, Pereira M, Mota Ferreira P, Kuplich P, Dohnert M, da Silva Guths J, Boff Daitx R. Associated Strengthening Exercises to Undenatured Oral Type II Collagen (UC-II). A Randomized Study in Patients Affected by Knee Osteoarthritis. Muscles Ligaments Tendons J (MLTJ). 2020;10(3).

  63. Deniz S, Topuz O, Atalay NS, Sarsan A, Yildiz N, Findikoglu G, Karaca O, Ardic F. Comparison of the Effectiveness of Pulsed and Continuous Diclofenac Phonophoresis in Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis. J Phys Therapy Sci. 2009;21(4):331–6.

  64. Dogan N, Yilmaz H, Ince B, Akcay S. Is Kinesio Taping Effective for Knee Osteoarthritis? Randomised, Controlled, Double-blind Study. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2022;32(11):1441–7.

  65. Donec V, Kubilius R. The effectiveness of Kinesio Taping(®) for mobility and functioning improvement in knee osteoarthritis: a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial. Clin Rehabil. 2020;34(7):877–89.

  66. Draper DO, Klyve D, Ortiz R, Best TM. Effect of low-intensity long-duration ultrasound on the symptomatic relief of knee osteoarthritis: a randomized, placebo-controlled double-blind study. J Orthopedic Surg Res. 2018;13(1):257.

  67. Dwyer L, Parkin-Smith GF, Brantingham JW, Korporaal C, Cassa TK, Globe G, Bonnefin D, Tong V. Manual and manipulative therapy in addition to rehabilitation for osteoarthritis of the knee: assessor-blind randomized pilot trial. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2015;38(1):1–21.e22.

  68. Eftekharsadat B, Jahanjoo F, Toopchizadeh V, Heidari F, Ahmadi R, Ghazani AB. Extracorporeal Shockwave Therapy and Physiotherapy in Patients With Moderate Knee Osteoarthritis. Crescent J Med Biol Sci. 2020;7:518–26.

  69. Elgendy MH, Elsamahy SA, Mahgoub Mostafa MSE, Hamza MSK. Efficacy Of Shockwave Therapy Versus Intra-Articular Platelet-Rich Plasma Injection In Management Of Knee Osteoarthritis: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Int J Pharm Res. 2020;12(4):4283–9. 

  70. ElGendy MH, Zalabia MM, Moharram AN, Abdelhay MI. Efficacy of rectus femoris stretching on pain, range of motion and spatiotemporal gait parameters in patients with knee osteoarthritis: a randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med. 2022;8(4):e001459.

  71. Fakhari S, Pishghahi A, Pourfathi H, Farzin H, Bilehjani E. A Comparison Between Low-Level Laser Therapy and Intra-articular Ozone Injection in Knee Osteoarthritis Treatment: A Randomized Clinical Trial. J Lasers Med Sci. 2021;12(1):e44–e44.

  72. Sousa Filho LF, Souza JBd, Almeida GKMd, Jesus ICGd, Oliveira EDd. Therapeutic ultrasound associated with copaiba oil reduces pain and improves range of motion in patients with knee osteoarthritis. Fisioterapia em Movimento. 2017;30(3):443–51.

  73. Fish D, Kretzmann H, Brantingham JW, Globe G, Korporaal C, Moen JR. A Randomized Clinical Trial to Determine the Effect of Combining a Topical Capsaicin Cream and Knee-Joint Mobilization in the Treatment of Osteoarthritis of the Knee. J Am Chiropr Assoc. 2008;45(6).

  74. Forogh B, Mianehsaz E, Shoaee S, Ahadi T, Raissi GR, Sajadi S. Effect of single injection of platelet-rich plasma in comparison with corticosteroid on knee osteoarthritis: a double-blind randomized clinical trial. J Sport Med Phys Fit. 2016;56(7-8):901–8.

  75. Fung KW, Chow DH, Shae W. The clinical effects of mobilization with passive ankle dorsiflexion using a passive ankle dorsiflexion apparatus on older patients with knee osteoarthritis: A randomized trial. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil. 2021;34(6):1007–14.

  76. Güngen G, Ardic F, Fιndıkoğlu G, Rota S. The effect of mud pack therapy on serum YKL-40 and hsCRP levels in patients with knee osteoarthritis. Rheumatol Int. 2012;32(5):1235–44.

  77. Gur A, Cosut A, Sarac AJ, Cevik R, Nas K, Uyar A. Efficacy 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.

  78. Gurudut P, Jaiswal R. Comparative Effect of Graded Motor Imagery and Progressive Muscle Relaxation on Mobility and Function in Patients with Knee Osteoarthritis: A Pilot Study. Altern Ther Health Med. 2022;28(3).

  79. Hewlings S, Kalman D, Schneider LV. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, prospective clinical trial evaluating water-soluble chicken eggshell membrane for improvement in joint health in adults with knee osteoarthritis. J Med Food. 2019;22(9):875–84.

  80. Ho KK-W, Kwok AW-L, Chau W-W, Xia S-M, Wang Y-L, Cheng JC-Y. A randomized controlled trial on the effect of focal thermal therapy at acupressure points treating osteoarthritis of the knee. J Orthop Surg Res. 2021;16(1):1–11.

  81. Kaya Mutlu E, Mustafaoglu R, Birinci T, Razak Ozdincler A. Does Kinesio Taping of the Knee Improve Pain and Functionality in Patients with Knee Osteoarthritis?: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2017;96(1).

  82. Khademi-Kalantari K, Aghdam SM, Baghban AA, Rezayi M, Rahimi A, Naimee S. Effects of non-surgical joint distraction in the treatment of severe knee osteoarthritis. J Bodyw Mov Ther. 2014;18(4):533–9.

  83. Kus G, Tarakci E, Ozdincler AR, Ercin E. Sensory-Motor Training Versus Resistance Training in the Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Clin Rehabil. 2023;37(5):636–50.

  84. Lizis P, Kobza W, Manko G. Extracorporeal shockwave therapy vs. kinesiotherapy for osteoarthritis of the knee: A pilot randomized controlled trial. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil. 2017;30(5):1121–8.

  85. Lizis P, Manko G, Kobza W, Para B. Manual therapy with cryotherapy versus kinesiotherapy with cryotherapy for knee osteoarthritis: a randomized controlled trial. Altern Ther Health Med. 2019;25(4):40–5.

  86. Lun V, Marsh A, Bray R, Lindsay D, Wiley P. Efficacy of Hip Strengthening Exercises Compared With Leg Strengthening Exercises on Knee Pain, Function, and Quality of Life in Patients With Knee Osteoarthritis. Clin J Sport Med. 2015;25(6).

  87. Ma Y-T, Dong Y-L, Wang B, Xie W-P, Huang Q-M, Zheng Y-J. Dry needling on latent and active myofascial trigger points versus oral diclofenac in patients with knee osteoarthritis: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2023;24(1):36.

  88. Mendes JG, Natour J, Nunes-Tamashiro JC, Toffolo SR, Rosenfeld A, Furtado RNV. Comparison between intra-articular Botulinum toxin type A, corticosteroid, and saline in knee osteoarthritis: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Rehabil. 2019;33(6):1015–26.

  89. Moezy A, Kavand S, Angoorani H, Nazari A, Masoudi S. A randomized controlled trial of two exercise protocols on pain, function, and vastus medialis thickness in women with knee osteoarthritis. J Pain Manage. 2021;14(2):133–44.

  90. Mohamed SHP, Alatawi SF. Effectiveness of Kinesio taping and conventional physical therapy in the management of knee osteoarthritis: a randomized clinical trial. Ir J Med Sci. 2022.

  91. Nam C-W, Kim K, Lee H-Y. The influence of exercise on an unstable surface on the physical function and muscle strength of patients with osteoarthritis of the knee. J Phys Ther Sci. 2014;26(10):1609–12.

  92. Nazari A, Moezy A, Nejati P, Mazaherinezhad A. Efficacy of high-intensity laser therapy in comparison with conventional physiotherapy and exercise therapy on pain and function of patients with knee osteoarthritis: a randomized controlled trial with 12-week follow up. Lasers Med Sci 2019;34(3):505–16.

  93. Nidup D, Kietinun S, Niempoog S, Sriyakul K. Efficacy of rtsa-byugs vs diclofenac gel in relieving knee pain of patients with osteoarthritis of the knee. J Health Res. 2020.

  94. Oktayoğlu P, Gür A, Yardımeden İ, Çağlayan M, Çevik F, Bozkurt M, Em S, Uçar D, Nas K. Comparison of the efficacy of phonophoresis and conventional ultrasound therapy in patients with primary knee osteoarthritis. Erciyes Med J/Erciyes Tip Dergisi. 2014;36(1).

  95. Parfitt N, Parfitt D. The effects of exercise following a corticosteroid injection for knee osteoarthritis: a pilot study. J Orthop Med. 2006;28(2):80–4.

  96. Parmigiani L, Furtado RN, Lopes RV, Ribeiro LH, Natour J. Joint lavage associated with triamcinolone hexacetonide injection in knee osteoarthritis: a randomized double-blind controlled study. Clin Rheumatol. 2010;29(11):1311–5.

  97. Petrella RJ, Petrella M. A prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled study to evaluate the efficacy of intraarticular hyaluronic acid for osteoarthritis of the knee. J Rheumatol. 2006;33(5):951–6.

  98. Pinkaew D, Kiattisin K, Wonglangka K, Awoot P. Improved WOMAC Score Following Treatment with Nanoparticle Phyllanthus Amarus Phonophoresis Gel for Knee Osteoarthritis. Indian J Public Health Res Dev. 2019;10(12).

  99. Prasad N, Vinay V, Srivastava A. Efficacy of a proprietary combination of Tamarindus indica seeds and Curcuma longa rhizome extracts in osteoar thritis: a clinical investigation. Food Nutr Res. 2023;67.

  100. Rahlf AL, Braumann K-M, Zech A. Kinesio taping improves perceptions of pain and function of patients with knee osteoarthritis: a randomized, controlled trial. J Sport Rehabil. 2019;28(5):481–7.

  101. Saleem N, Zahid S, Mahmood T, Ahmed N, Maqsood U, Chaudhary MA. Effect of Pilates based exercises on symptomatic knee osteoarthritis-A Randomized Controlled Trial. J Pak Med Assoc. 2022;72(01):8–12.

  102. Samaan S, Sedhom MG, Grace MO. A randomized comparative study between high-intensity laser vs low-intensity pulsed ultrasound both combined with exercises for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis. Int J Rheum Dis. 2022.

  103. Sari Z, Aydoğdu O, Demirbüken İ, Yurdalan SU, Polat MG. A better way to decrease knee swelling in patients with knee osteoarthritis: a single-blind randomised controlled trial. Pain Res Manage. 2019;2019.

  104. Shin Y-A, Suk M-H, Jang H-S, Choi H-J. Short-term effects of Theracurmin dose and exercise type on pain, walking ability, and muscle function in patients with knee osteoarthritis. J Exerc Rehabil. 2017;13(6):684.

  105. Song Q, Shen P, Mao M, Sun W, Zhang C, Li L. Proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation improves pain and descending mechanics among elderly with knee osteoarthritis. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2020;30(9):1655–63.

  106. Sterzi S, Giordani L, Morrone M, Lena E, Magrone G, Scarpini C, et al. The efficacy and safety of a combination of glucosamine hydrochloride, chondroitin sulfate and bio-curcumin with exercise in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2016;52(3):321–30.

  107. Suen LK, Yeh CH, Yeung SK. Using auriculotherapy for osteoarthritic knee among elders: a double-blinded randomised feasibility study. BMC J Int Med Res. 2016;16(1):1–9.

  108. Tammachote N, Kanitnate S, Yakumpor T, Panichkul P. Intra-articular, single-shot hylan GF 20 hyaluronic acid injection compared with corticosteroid in knee osteoarthritis: a double-blind, randomized controlled trial. JBJS. 2016;98(11):885–92.

  109. Tascιoglu F, Öner C. Efficacy of intra-articular sodium hyaluronate in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis. Clin Rheumatol. 2003;22(2):112–7.

  110. Tascioglu F, Kuzgun S, Armagan O, Ogutler G. Short-term effectiveness of ultrasound therapy in knee osteoarthritis. J Int Med Res. 2010;38(4):1233–42.

  111. Terzi R, Altin F. Evaluation of Short-Wave Diathermy and Ultrasound Treatments as Combined Physical Treatments for Knee Osteoarthritis. J Phys Med Rehabil Sci/Fiziksel Tup ve Rehabilitasyon Bilimleri Dergisi. 2017;20(3).

  112. Torri G, Vignati C, Agrifoglio E, Benvenuti M, Ceciliani L, Raschella B, et al. Aceclofenac versus piroxicam in the management of osteoarthritis of the knee: a double-blind controlled study. Curr Ther Res. 1994;55(5):576–83.

  113. Wang TJ, Lee SC, Liang SY, Tung HH, Wu SFV, Lin YP. Comparing the efficacy of aquatic exercises and land ‐based exercises for patients with knee osteoarthritis . J Clin Nurs. 2011;20(17-18):2609–22.

  114. Wang SZ, Wu DY, Chang Q, Guo YD, Wang C, Fan WM. Intra‑articular, single‑shot co‑injection of hyaluronic acid and corticosteroids in knee osteoarthritis: A randomized controlled trial. Exp Ther Med. 2018;16(3):1928–34.

  115. Yurtkuran M, Yurtkuran M, Alp A, Nasırcılar A, Bingöl Ü, Altan L, Sarpdere G. Balneotherapy and tap water therapy in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis. Rheumatol Int. 2006;27(1):19–27.

  116. Zaidi S, Jamil S, Sultana A, Zaman F, Fuzail M. Safety and efficacy of leeching therapy for symptomatic knee osteoarthritis using Indian medicinal leech. 2009.

  117. Rowe PJ, Myles CM, Walker C, et al. Knee joint kinematics in gait and other functional activities measured using flexible electrogoniometry: how much knee motion is sufficient for normal daily life? Gait Posture. 2000;12(2):143–55.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  118. Angst F, Aeschlimann A, Angst J. The minimal clinically important difference raised the significance of outcome effects above the statistical level, with methodological implications for future studies. J Exp Orthop. 2017;82:128–36.

    Google Scholar 

  119. Wright AA, Cook CE, Baxter GD, et al. A comparison of 3 methodological approaches to defining major clinically important improvement of 4 performance measures in patients with hip osteoarthritis. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2011;41(5):319–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  120. Bonnefoy-Mazure A, Lübbeke A, Miozzari HH, et al. Walking speed and maximal knee flexion during gait after total knee arthroplasty: minimal clinically important improvement is not determinable; patient acceptable symptom state is potentially useful. J Arthroplasty. 2020;35(10):2865–2871.e2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  121. Wylde V, Lenguerrand E, Brunton L, et al. Does measuring the range of motion of the hip and knee add to the assessment of disability in people undergoing joint replacement? Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2014;100(2):183–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  122. Fiona Dobson KLB, Rana S. Hinman, J Haxby Abbott, Ewa M. Roos. Recommended performance-based tests to assess physical function in people diagnosed with hip or knee osteoarthritis: OARSI funded initiative; 2022. Available from: https://oarsi.org/sites/default/files/docs/2013/manual.pdf.

  123. Gorard S. The propagation of errors in experimental data analysis: a comparison of pre- and post-test designs. Int J Res Method Educ. 2013;36(4):372–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  124. Wang YC, Hart DL, Stratford PW, et al. Baseline dependency of minimal clinically important improvement. Phys Ther. 2011;91(5):675–88.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  125. Stratford PW, Kennedy DM, Robarts SF. Modelling knee range of motion post arthroplasty: clinical applications. Physiother Can. 2010;62(4):378–87.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  126. Jakobsen TL, Christensen M, Christensen SS, et al. Reliability of knee joint range of motion and circumference measurements after total knee arthroplasty: does tester experience matter? Physiother Res Int. 2010;15(3):126–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  127. Lind V, Svensson M, Harringe ML. Reliability and validity of a digital goniometer for measuring knee joint range of motion. Meas Phys Educ Exerc Sci. 2022;26(3):191–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Murray Turner, the librarian of University of Canberra.

Funding

No funding.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Health, University of Canberra, Bruce, ACT, 2617, Australia

    M. Denika C. Silva, Andrew P. Woodward, Angela M. Fearon, Diana M. Perriman, Trevor J. Spencer, Jacqui M. Couldrick & Jennie M. Scarvell

  2. Trauma and Orthopaedic Research Unit, Canberra Hospital, Canberra, Australia

    M. Denika C. Silva, Angela M. Fearon, Diana M. Perriman, Trevor J. Spencer, Jacqui M. Couldrick & Jennie M. Scarvell

  3. Department of Physiotherapy, General Sir John Kotelawala Defence University, Werahera, Colombo, Sri Lanka

    M. Denika C. Silva

  4. Research Institute for Sport and Exercise, University of Canberra, Canberra, Australia

    Angela M. Fearon & Trevor J. Spencer

  5. College of Medicine and Health Sciences, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia

    Diana M. Perriman

Authors
  1. M. Denika C. Silva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andrew P. Woodward
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Angela M. Fearon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Diana M. Perriman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Trevor J. Spencer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jacqui M. Couldrick
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Jennie M. Scarvell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

DS, conception and design of the work, data acquisition, analysis, interpretation of data and drafted the work; AW, conception and design of the work, data analysis, interpretation of data and reviewing; AF, conception, design of the work, interpretation of data and reviewing; DP, conception, design of the work, interpretation of data and reviewing; TS, data acquisition; JC, data acquisition; and JS, conception, design of the work, interpretation of data and reviewing. All the author(s) read and approved the final version of the manuscript. Corresponding author, DS.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. Denika C. Silva.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1.

 Search strategy in MEDLINE (Ebsco) database.

Additional file 2.

 Reference list of included studies.

Additional file 3.

 Risk of bias- included studies.

Additional file 4.

 Changes in knee flexion, pain and function after interventions.

Additional file 5.

 Funnel plots.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Silva, M.D.C., Woodward, A.P., Fearon, A.M. et al. Minimal clinically important change of knee flexion in people with knee osteoarthritis after non-surgical interventions using a meta-analytical approach. Syst Rev 13, 50 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-023-02393-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-023-02393-0

Keywords

Systematic Reviews

ISSN: 2046-4053