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

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

Model	Parameter	Posterior mean (°)	90% CrI (°)
Relationship between Δ pain at rest with Δ flexion	Intercept	− 0.84	− 3.62, 1.95
	Slope	− 0.29	− 0.44, − 0.15
	\({\varvec{\tau}}\)(study), n = 14	2.11	0.92, 3.32
	\({\varvec{\tau}}\)(intervention arm), n = 37	1.90	1.10, 2.87
Relationship between Δ pain during activity with Δ flexion	Intercept	− 2.08	− 5.78, 1.73
	Slope	− 0.29	− 0.41, − 0.18
	\({\varvec{\tau}}\)(study), n = 10	3.14	0.86, 5.50
	\({\varvec{\tau}}\)(intervention arm), n = 26	2.80	1.65, 4.23
Relationship between Δ pain-general with Δ flexion	Intercept	− 0.19	− 3.86, 3.34
	Slope	− 0.33	− 0.42, − 0.23
	\({\varvec{\tau}}\)(study), n = 28	8.42	6.56, 10.72
	\({\varvec{\tau}}\)(intervention arm), n = 60	3.79	3.00, 4.77
Relationship between Δ function with Δ flexion	Intercept	2.99	1.43, 4.48
	Slope	− 0.15	− 0.25, − 0.07
	\({\varvec{\tau}}\)(study), n = 33	2.50	0.81, 3.89
	\({\varvec{\tau}}\)(intervention arm), n = 76	3.65	2.91, 4.51

CrI, credible interval; Δmean change between baseline and immediately after the intervention; Δpain is reported in visual analog scale (VAS) where 0 = no pain at all and 100 = worst pain; Δfunction is measured using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) function subscale, where 0 = best function at all and 100 = worst function. \(\uptau\) Heterogeneity estimates using standard deviation (intercept)

ISSN: 2046-4053