Table 6.67Symptoms: function

Function outcomeReferenceInterventionAssessment timeOutcome/effect size
Knee
Brace
WOMAC score1 MA (Brouwer et al. 2005) 1 RCT, N=119Knee brace vs neoprene sleeve6 monthsKnee brace better
WOMAC score; MACTAR score1 MA (Brouwer et al. 2005) 1 RCT, N=119Knee brace vs medical treatment6 monthsKnee brace better
WOMAC score1 MA (Brouwer et al. 2005) 1 RCT, N=119Neoprene sleeve vs medical treatment6 monthsNeoprene sleeve better
Walking distance1 RCT (Brouwer et al. 2006) (N−=118)Knee brace + conservative treatment vs control (conservative treatment)3 months
12 months and overall
3 months (effect size 0.3; p=0.03)
12 months (effect size 0.4; p=0.04)
Overall (effect size 0.4; p=0.02)
Favours knee brace
Walking distance1 RCT (Brouwer et al. 2006) (N−=118)Knee brace + conservative treatment vs control (conservative treatment)6 monthsNS
Knee function (HSS)1 RCT (Brouwer et al. 2006) (N−=118)Knee brace + conservative treatment vs control (conservative treatment)3 months, 6 months
12 months or overall
NS
Insoles
WOMAC physical function1 MA (Brouwer et al. 2005) 1 RCT, N=147Laterally wedged insole vs neutrally wedged insole1 month, 3 months and 6 months follow-upNS
WOMAC disability; 50-foot walk time; 5 chair stand time1 RCT (Baker et al. 2007) (N=90)Laterally wedged insole vs neutrally wedged insole6 weeks (end of treatment)NS
Lequesne’s Index; femoro-tibial angle (FTA), talocalcaneal angle and talar tilt angle1 MA (Brouwer et al. 2005) 1 RCT, N=90Subtalar strapped insole vs inserted insole8 weeksNS
FTA angle and talar tilt angle1 MA (Brouwer et al. 2005) 1 RCT, N=90Subtalar strapped insole vs no insole8 weeksP<0.05
Favours strapped insole
FTA angle; aggregate score1 MA (Brouwer et al. 2005) 1 RCT, N=88Subtalar strapped insole vs sock-type insole8 weeksNS
WOMAC function (change from baseline)1 RCT (Pham et al. 2004) (N=156)Laterally wedged insole vs neutrally wedged insole2 years (end of treatment)NS
Taping
Restriction of activity, VAS (change from baseline)1 RCT (Hinman et al. 2003) (N=87)Therapeutic tape vs control tape3 weeks, end of treatment3 weeks:
−1.5 (therapeutic) and
−1.4 (control)
Therapeutic tape better
WOMAC physical function (change from baseline)1 RCT (Hinman et al. 2003) (N=87)Therapeutic tape vs control tape3 weeks, end of treatment3 weeks:
−4.0 (therapeutic) and
−3.1 (control)
Therapeutic tape better
Restriction of activity, VAS (change from baseline)1 RCT (Hinman et al. 2003) (N=87)Therapeutic tape vs control tape3 weeks, end of treatment3 weeks:
−1.0 (therapeutic) and
−1.2 (control)
3 weeks post-treatment:
−3.4 (therapeutic) and
−6.0 (control)
Control tape better
Restriction of activity, VAS (change from baseline)1 RCT (Hinman et al. 2003) (N=87)Therapeutic tape vs no tape3 weeks, end of treatment and 3 weeks post-treatment3 weeks:
−1.0 (therapeutic) and
+0.2 (no tape)
3 weeks post-treatment
− 1.5 (therapeutic) and
+0.1 (none)
Therapeutic tape better
WOMAC physical function (change from baseline)1 RCT (Hinman et al. 2003) (N=87)Therapeutic tape vs no tape3 weeks, end of treatment and 3 weeks post-treatment3 weeks:
−4.0 (therapeutic) and
+1.7 (no tape)
3 weeks post-treatment
−3.4 (therapeutic) and
+1.9 (none)
Therapeutic tape better
Shoes
WOMAC total (change from baseline); WOMAC physical function (change from baseline); ROM extension, degrees (change from baseline); ROM flexion, degrees (change from baseline)1 RCT (Nigg et al. 2006) (N=125)MBT shoe vs high-end walking shoe12 weeks (end of treatment)NS
Cane
Walking speed, m/s1 RCT (Chan and Smith 2005) (N=14)Ipsilateral cane vs no cane (unaided walking)Immediatep=0.00
Favours cane
Cadence, steps/minute1 RCT (Chan and Smith 2005) (N=14)Ipsilateral cane vs no cane (unaided walking)Immediatep<0.001
Favours cane
Stride length1 RCT (Chan and Smith 2005) (N=14)Ipsilateral cane vs no cane (unaided walking)ImmediateNS
Walking speed, m/s1 RCT (Chan and Smith 2005) (N=14)Contralateral cane vs no cane (unaided walking)Immediatep=0.00
Favours cane
Cadence, steps/minute1 RCT (Chan and Smith 2005) (N=14)Contralateral cane vs no cane (unaided walking)ImmediateP<0.001
Favours cane
Mixed
WOMAC function (change from baseline)1 RCT (Quilty et al. 2003) (N=87)Taping + exercises + posture correction + education vs standard treatment (no experimental intervention)5 months (3 months post-treatment) and at 12 months (10 months post-treatment)NS
Lequesne’s Index of Disease Severity, % remission1 RCT (Toda et al. 2004) (N=84)Urethane insoles + strapping + NSAID vs rubber insoles + strapping + NSAID4 weeks, end of treatmentp=0.001
Favours urethane insole + strapping + NSAID
Lequesne’s Index of disease severity, % remission1 RCT (Toda et al. 2005) (N=81)Urethane insoles + strapping + NSAID worn for the medium length of time (5–10 hrs/day) vs short-length (<5 hrs/day)2 weeks, end of treatmentp=0.001
Lequesne’s Index of disease severity, % remission1 RCT (Toda et al. 2005) (N=81)Urethane insoles + strapping + NSAID worn for the medium length of time (5–10 hrs/day) vs long length (>10 hrs/day)2 weeks, end of treatmentp=0.001
Lequesne’s index of disease severity (change from baseline)1 RCT (Toda et al. 2004) (N=62)Insoles + strapping + NSAID − insoles at different elevations (8 mm vs 12 mm vs 16 mm)2 weeks, end of treatmentNS
Lequesne’s index of disease severity, % remission1 RCT (Toda et al. 2004) (N=62)12mm insole + strapping + NSAID vs 16 mm insole2 weeks, end of treatmentp=0.029
Lequesne’s index of disease severity (change from baseline)1 RCT (Toda and Tsukimura 2004b, Toda and Tsukimura 2006) (N=66)Urethane insole + strapping + NSAID vs rubber insole + NSAID3 months and 6 months (mid-study) and at 2 years, end of study.3 months:
−2.1 (urethane) and −0.7 (rubber)
6 months: −2.2 (urethane) and −0.9 (rubber)
2 years: −2.4 (urethane) and −0.3 (rubber)
Urethane insole better
Progression of Kellgren-Lawrence grade1 RCT (Toda and Tsukimura 2006) (N=66)Urethane insole + strapping + NSAID vs rubber insole + NSAID2 years, end of studyNS
Hand (thumb – carpometacarpal (CMC) joint)
Tip pinch, kg (change from baseline); hand function, Sollerman Test, ADL (change from baseline)1 RCT (Wajon and Ada 2005) (N=40)Thumb strap splint + abduction exercises vs control (short opponens splint + pinch exercises2 weeks (mid-treatment) and at 6 weeks (end of treatment).NS
Tip pinch strength, kg, (change from baseline) at 1 week (end of treatment)1 RCT (Weiss 2000) (N=26)Short opponens splint vs long opponens splint1 week (end of treatment)NS
ADL, % same or easier at 1 week (end of treatment)1 RCT (Weiss 2000) (N=26)Short opponens splint vs long opponens splint1 week (end of treatment)Both groups similar

From: 6, Non-pharmacological management of osteoarthritis

Cover of Osteoarthritis
Osteoarthritis: National Clinical Guideline for Care and Management in Adults.
NICE Clinical Guidelines, No. 59.
National Collaborating Centre for Chronic Conditions (UK).
Copyright © 2008, Royal College of Physicians of London.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic means and whether or not transiently or incidentally to some other use of this publication) without the written permission of the copyright owner. Applications for the copyright owner’s written permission to reproduce any part of this publication should be addressed to the publisher.

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.