This is not the most recent version of the article. View current version (20 JAN 2010)
Intervention Review
Therapeutic ultrasound for osteoarthritis of the knee
Editorial Group: Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group
Published Online: 7 OCT 2009
Assessed as up-to-date: 1 MAY 2001
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003132
Copyright © 2009 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Database Title
Additional Information
How to Cite
Welch V, Brosseau L, Peterson J, Shea B, Tugwell P, Wells GA. Therapeutic ultrasound for osteoarthritis of the knee. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2001, Issue 3. Art. No.: CD003132. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003132.
Publication History
- Publication Status: Unchanged
- Published Online: 7 OCT 2009
This is not the most recent version of the article.View current version (20 Jan 2010)
Abstract
Background
Therapeutic ultrasound is one of several physical therapy modalities suggested for the management of pain and loss of function due to osteoarthritis (OA).
Objectives
To assess the effectiveness of therapeutic ultrasound therapy for treating OA.
Search strategy
We searched the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group register and MEDLINE (to December 2000) using the sensitive search strategy developed by the Cochrane Collaboration. The search was complemented with bibliography searches of the reference list of the trials retrieved from the electronic search. Key experts in the area were contacted for further published and unpublished articles.
Selection criteria
All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) in people with OA comparing therapeutic ultrasound against placebo or another active intervention were selected.
Data collection and analysis
Two reviewers determined the studies to be included based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data were independently extracted by two reviewers and checked by a third reviewer. using an adapted form from the OA subgroup of the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group.
The same two reviewers independently assessed the methodological quality of the RCTs and CCTs using a validated scale. Outcome measures for OA were extracted from the publications. The pooled analyses were performed using weighted mean differences (WMDs) for joint counts, pain, and global and functional assessments. A chi-square test was used to assess heterogeneity among trials. Fixed effects models were used throughout and random effects models used for outcomes showing heterogeneity.
Main results
Three trials including 294 participants with hip or knee OA were included. Only one trial (n of 74), where n is the number of participants, compared therapeutic ultrasound to placebo. This trial showed no difference in range of motion, pain or gait velocity after four weeks of therapeutic ultrasound. Two trials compared therapeutic ultrasound to an active therapy (n of 220). These trials showed no statistical difference between ultrasound, galvanic current or short wave diathermy for the outcomes of pain and participant assessed improvement.
Authors' conclusions
Ultrasound therapy appears to have no benefit over placebo or short wave diathermy for people with hip or knee OA. These conclusions are limited by the poor reporting of the characteristics of the device, the population, the stage of OA, therapeutic application of the ultrasound and overall low methodological quality of the trials included. No conclusions can be drawn about the use of ultrasound in smaller joints such as the wrist or hands.
Plain language summary
Ultrasound therapy for osteoarthritis (OA) may have no benefit over placebo or short wave diathermy
Therapeutic ultrasound is a physical therapy that can be used as part of an overall rehabilitation program for musculoskeletal disorders such as OA. This review compared ultrasound to placebo or active therapy (galvanic current or short wave diathermy). In three studies with a total of 147 participants assigned to ultrasound there was no benefit of ultrasound therapy for pain relief, range of motion or functional status. These conclusions are limited by overall poor methodological quality of the comparative trials.
