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

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

doi:10.1186/s13643-023-02393-0

Systematic Reviews

Table 5 Parameter estimates for relationships considering supine flexion

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

Model	Parameter	Posterior mean (°)	90% CrI (°)
Models using position = supine, mode = active
Relationship between Δ pain at rest with Δ supine-active flexion	Intercept	3.43	− 6.63,12.78
	Slope	− 0.08	− 0.56, 0.37
	\({\varvec{\uptau}}\)(study) (n = 2)	2.22	0.16, 6.12
	\({\varvec{\uptau}}\)(intervention arms) (n = 5)	3.54	1.41, 6.47
Relationship between Δ pain during activity with Δ supine-active flexion	Intercept	− 3.36	− 12.60, 6.63
	Slope	− 0.27	− 0.56, 0.03
	\({\varvec{\uptau}}\)(study) (n = 2)	1.97	0.13, 5.47
	\({\varvec{\uptau}}\)(intervention arms (n = 5)	2.34	0.27, 5.18
Relationship between Δ pain-general with Δ supine-active flexion^a	Intercept	− 4.95	− 18.02, 8.68
	Slope	− 0.89	− 1.09, − 0.55
	\({\varvec{\uptau}}\)(study) (n = 4)	25.28	13.88, 42.89
	\({\varvec{\uptau}}\)(intervention arms) (n = 8)	2.59	0.13, 8.63
Relationship between Δ function with Δ supine-active flexion	Intercept	4.01	1.17, 6.75
	Slope	0.12	− 0.07, 0.32
	\({\varvec{\uptau}}\)(study) (n = 7)	2.49	0.23, 5.76
	\({\varvec{\uptau}}\)(intervention arms) (n = 15)	3.85	2.40, 5.85
Models using position = supine, mode = pooled
Relationship between Δ pain at rest with Δ pooled-supine flexion	Intercept	− 0.86	− 7.09, 4.54
	Slope	− 0.26	− 0.57, 0.20
	\({\varvec{\uptau}}\)(study) (n = 6)	1.41	0.09, 3.76
	\({\varvec{\uptau}}\)(intervention arms) (n = 16)	2.92	1.19, 4.80
Relationship between Δ pain during activity with Δ pooled-supine flexion^a	Intercept	− 3.10	− 7.19, 1.25
	Slope	− 0.24	− 0.37, − 0.12
	\({\varvec{\uptau}}\)(study) (n = 5)	1.55	0.14, 3.85
	\({\varvec{\uptau}}\)(intervention arms) (n = 14)	1.88	0.36, 3.62
Relationship between Δ pain-general with Δ pooled-supine flexion^a	Intercept	− 0.97	− 11.19, 9.00
	Slope	− 0.61	− 0.93, − 0.30
	\({\varvec{\uptau}}\)(study) (n = 7)	15.02	8.12, 23.87
	\({\varvec{\uptau}}\)(intervention arms) (n = 14)	6.54	3.27,11.67
Relationship between Δ function with Δ pooled-supine flexion	Intercept	4.14	2.35, 5.89
	Slope	0.03	− 0.10, 0.16
	\({\varvec{\uptau}}\)(study) (n = 14)	1.95	0.22, 4.07
	\({\varvec{\uptau}}\)(intervention arms) (n = 33)	3.58	2.52, 4.84

^aThe uncertainty of the relationships was sufficiently low, and they were used to estimate MCIC. 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); ‘position = supine, mode = active’, supine-active flexion data; ‘position = supine, mode = pooled’, pooled-supine flexion data

Back to article page

ISSN: 2046-4053

Contact us

Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us
General enquiries: info@biomedcentral.com