Experts prioritize osteoarthritis non-surgical interventions from Cochrane systematic reviews for translation into “Evidence4Equity” summaries

Houlding-Braunberger, Elizabeth; Petkovic, Jennifer; Lebel, Nicholas; Tugwell, Peter

doi:10.1186/s12939-021-01477-4

International Journal for Equity in Health

Table 1 Ratings of bottom interventions

From: Experts prioritize osteoarthritis non-surgical interventions from Cochrane systematic reviews for translation into “Evidence4Equity” summaries

Intervention		Ease of implementation^a	Health System Effects ^b	Universality^c	Impact on Inequities^d	Overall Rating^e
1	Home land-based exercise vs no exercise for knee OA	Range: 2–4 Total: 86.11 Rating: 1	Range: 2–4 Total: 75.00 Rating: 3	Range: 2–4 Total: 91.67 Rating: 1	Range: 1–4 Total: 72.22 Rating: 2	Range: 2–4 Total: 88.89 Rating: 1
2	Individual Land-based exercise vs no exercise for knee OA	Range: 2–4 Total: 86.11 Rating: 1	Range: 2–4 Total: 80.56 Rating: 2	Range: 2–4 Total: 91.67 Rating: 1	Range: 1–4 Total: 69.44 Rating: 3	Range: 2–4 Total: 86.11 Rating: 2
3	Class land-based exercise vs no exercise for knee OA	Range: 2–4 Total: 83.33 Rating: 3	Range: 2–4 Total: 72.22 Rating: 5	Range: 2–4 Total: 91.67 Rating: 1	Range: 1–4 Total: 66.67 Rating: 8	Range: 2–4 Total: 86.11 Rating: 2
4	Exercise vs no exercise for hand OA	Range: 2–4 Total: 83.33 Rating: 3	Range: 2–4 Total: 72.22 Rating: 5	Range: 2–4 Total: 91.67 Rating: 1	Range: 1–4 Total: 69.44 Rating: 3	Range: 2–4 Total: 86.11 Rating: 2
5	All land-based exercise vs no exercise for hip OA	Range: 2–4 Total: 81.00 Rating: 5	Range: 2–4 Total: 83.00 Rating: 1	Range: 1–4 Total: 81.00 Rating: 6	Range: 1–4 Total: 76.00 Rating: 1	Range: 2–4 Total: 86.00 Rating: 5
6	High vs low intensity exercise	Range: 2–4 Total: 75.00 Rating: 8	Range: 2–4 Total: 72.22 Rating: 5	Range: 2–4 Total: 86.11 Rating: 5	Range: 1–4 Total: 66.67 Rating: 8	Range: 2–4 Total: 80.56 Rating: 6
7	Self-Management Program vs usual care/no treatment/wait list	Range: 2–4 Total: 72.22 Rating: 9	Range: 2–4 Total: 72.22 Rating: 5	Range: 2–4 Total: 77.78 Rating: 7	Range: 1–4 Total: 69.44 Rating: 3	Range: 2–4 Total: 75.00 Rating: 7
8	Celecoxib vs placebo	Range: 2–4 Total: 81.00 Rating: 5	Range: 2–4 Total: 75.00 Rating: 3	Range: 2–4 Total: 72.00 Rating: 8	Range: 1–4 Total: 69.00 Rating: 6	Range: 2–4 Total: 69.00 Rating: 8
9	Ayurvedic RA-II vs placebo	Range: 0–4 Total: 61.00 Rating: 23	Range: 0–4 Total: 50.00 Rating: 25	Range: 0–4 Total: 58.00 Rating: 20	Range: 0–4 Total: 58.00 Rating: 15	Range: 0–4 Total: 61.00 Rating: 9
10	Chondroitin sulfate (+ glucosamine) vs placebo or control ≥800 mg/d	Range: 0–4 Total: 72.00 Rating: 12	Range: 0–4 Total: 64.00 Rating: 10	Range: 0–4 Total: 56.00 Rating: 25	Range: 0–4 Total: 56.00 Rating: 19	Range: 0–4 Total: 56.00 Rating: 10
11	Corticosteroid vs sham injection/no treatment	Range: 1–4 Total: 58.00 Rating: 27	Range: 1–4 Total: 61.00 Rating: 14	Range: 1–4 Total: 61.00 Rating: 12	Range: 1–4 Total: 67.00 Rating: 7	Range: 1–4 Total: 56.00 Rating: 10
12	Lateral wedge insole versus no insole	Range: 0–4 Total: 61.11 Rating: 12	Range: 0–4 Total: 58.33 Rating: 10	Range: 0–4 Total: 63.98 Rating: 7	Range: 0–4 Total: 52.78 Rating: 11	Range: 0–4 Total: 55.56 Rating: 11
13	Aquatic exercise vs control (usual care, education, social attention, telephone call, waiting list for surgery) immediately after treatment: knee and hip OA	Range: 1–4 Total: 56.00 Rating: 16	Range: 1–4 Total: 57.00 Rating: 11	Range: 2–4 Total: 64.00 Rating: 6	Range: 1–3 Total: 51.00 Rating: 12	Range: 2–3 Total: 54.00 Rating: 12
14	Chondroitin vs Placebo ≥800 mg/d	Range: 0–4 Total: 72.22 Rating: 6	Range: 0–4 Total: 69.44 Rating: 5	Range: 0–4 Total: 52.78 Rating: 14	Range: 0–4 Total: 52.78 Rating: 11	Range: 0–4 Total: 52.78 Rating: 13
15	Brace vs no treatment	Range: 1–4 Total: 58.33 Rating: 14	Range: 0–4 Total: 47.22 Rating:17	Range: 0–4 Total: 58.33 Rating: 10	Range: 0–4 Total: 52.78 Rating: 11	Range: 0–4 Total: 50.00 Rating: 14
16	Harpagophytum procumbens vs diacerhein	Range: 0–4 Total: 63.89 Rating: 11	Range: 0–4 Total: 58.33 Rating: 10	Range: 0–4 Total: 61.11 Rating: 8	Range: 0–4 Total: 58.33 Rating: 7	Range: 0–4 Total: 50.00 Rating: 14
17	Boswellia serrata, enriched (100 mg) + non-volatile oil vs placebo	Range: 0–4 Total: 66.67 Rating: 9	Range: 0–4 Total: 52.78 Rating: 15	Range: 0–4 Total: 58.33 Rating: 10	Range: 0–4 Total: 58.33 Rating: 7	Range: 0–4 Total: 47.22 Rating: 15
18	Acupuncture + routine vs routine alone	Range: 1–4 Total:58.33 Rating: 14	Range: 0–4 Total: 55.56 Rating: 13	Range: 0–4 Total: 55.56 Rating: 13	Range: 0–4 Total: 50.00 Rating: 13	Range: 0–4 Total: 47.22 Rating: 15
19	Reumalex vs placebo	Range: 0–4 Total: 66.67 Rating: 9	Range: 0–4 Total: 52.78 Rating: 15	Range: 0–4 Total: 58.33 Rating: 10	Range: 0–4 Total: 58.33 Rating: 7	Range: 0–4 Total: 47.22 Rating: 15
20	Persea gratissma + Glycine max (600 mg) vs placebo	Range: 2–4 Total: 72.22 Rating: 6	Range: 0–4 Total: 61.11 Rating: 8	Range: 0–4 Total: 58.33 Rating: 10	Range: 0–4 Total: 58.33 Rating: 7	Range: 0–4 Total: 47.22 Rating: 15
21	Acupuncture vs sham acupuncture	Range: 0–4 Total: 58.33 Rating: 14	Range: 0–4 Total: 47.22 Rating: 17	Range: 0–3 Total: 58.33 Rating: 10	Range: 0–4 Total: 50.00 Rating: 13	Range: 0–4 Total: 47.22 Rating: 15
22	Pinus pinaster (150 mL) vs placebo	Range: 0–4 Total: 67.00 Rating: 8	Range: 0–4 Total: 53.00 Rating: 14	Range: 0–4 Total: 58.00 Rating: 11	Range: 0–4 Total: 58.00 Rating: 8	Range: 0–4 Total: 47.00 Rating: 16
23	SKI306X (1800 mg) vs placebo	Range: 0–4 Total: 67.00 Rating: 8	Range: 0–4 Total: 56.00 Rating: 12	Range: 0–4 Total: 58.00 Rating: 11	Range: 0–4 Total: 58.00 Rating: 8	Range: 0–4 Total: 47.00 Rating: 16
24	Boswellia serrata, enriched (100 mg) vs placebo	Range: 2–4 Total: 72.00 Rating: 7	Range: 0–4 Total: 53.00 Rating: 14	Range: 0–4 Total: 58.00 Rating: 11	Range: 0–4 Total: 58.00 Rating: 8	Range: 0–4 Total: 47.00 Rating: 16
25	Salix purpurea x daphnoides vs diclofenac	Range: 1–4 Total: 76.39 Rating: 4	Range: 0–4 Total: 63.89 Rating: 7	Range: 0–4 Total: 58.33 Rating: 10	Range: 0–4 Total: 55.56 Rating: 10	Range: 0–4 Total: 44.44 Rating: 17
26	Hyaluronic acid vs placebo + progressive ankle exercise	Range: 0–3 Total: 47.22 Rating: 17	Range: 1–4 Total: 47.22 Rating: 17	Range: 0–3 Total: 50.00 Rating: 15	Range: 0–4 Total: 44.44 Rating: 15	Range: 0–4 Total: 44.44 Rating: 17
27	Zingiber officinale + Alpinia galanga (EV.EXT77) vs placebo	Range: 0–4 Total: 66.67 Rating: 9	Range: 0–4 Total: 61.11 Rating: 8	Range: 0–4 Total: 58.33 Rating: 10	Range: 0–4 Total: 58.33 Rating: 7	Range: 0–4 Total: 44.44 Rating: 17
28	Acupuncture vs NSAIDs	Range: 1–4 Total: 64.00 Rating: 10	Range: 0–4 Total: 47.00 Rating: 18	Range: 0–4 Total: 58.00 Rating: 11	Range: 0–4 Total:47.00 Rating: 14	Range: 0–3 Total: 42.00 Rating: 18
29	Opioids versus placebo	Range: 0–4 Total: 67.00 Rating: 8	Range: 0–4 Total: 56.00 Rating: 12	Range: 0–4 Total: 56.00 Rating: 12	Range: 0–4 Total: 43.00 Rating: 16	Range: 0–3 Total: 28.00 Rating: 19

^aFor Ease of Implementation: How easily can the intervention be added to usual care without requiring too much effort from health workers or disrupting practice. Consider how much effort is required, what training and resources are needed, what kind of scheduling and follow up, physical space, etc. Ratings are 0 to 4. 4 = optimal (easier to implement), 0 = more difficult. Total score has been converted to a score out of 100
^bFor Health System Effects: the impact the intervention will have on the health system. Certain interventions may be easy to implement but will still have large system effects – they may require incremental or major changes to the health system. 4 = optimal (easier/fewer health system effects), 0 = more difficult/greater health system effects. Total score has been converted to a score out of 100
^cFor universality: Applicable and beneficial to large numbers including interventions targeted at one segment of the population (e.g. men) but the effects are wider than those targeted for the intervention (e.g. circumcision of men helps prevent HIV infection in women). An intervention targeted to all the PLHIV should be considered over for example MSM’s living with HIV who have TB and Hep C co-infection - a very small specific group. Ratings are 0 to 4. 4 = Optimal (more generalizable/population-based, 0 = less generalizable/specific population. Total score has been converted into a score out of 100
^dDoes the distribution of the disease burden affect mainly the disadvantaged? Are the disadvantaged most likely to benefit from the intervention? Will the intervention improve equity in disease burden distribution long-term? Ratings are 0–4. 4 = optimal interventions that would decrease inequities. 0 = interventions that may increase inequities. Total score has been converted to a score out of 100
^eOverall rating indicate prioritization for knowledge translation into an E4E summary. 4 = high priority for knowledge translation into an E4E summary. 0 = low priority for knowledge translation into an E4E summary. Total score has been converted to a score out of 100

Back to article page

ISSN: 1475-9276

Contact us

General enquiries: journalsubmissions@springernature.com