Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32396180›Full record

Trial reportJAMA2020

Effect of Biomechanical Footwear on Knee Pain in People With Knee Osteoarthritis: The BIOTOK Randomized Clinical Trial.

Stephan Reichenbach, David T Felson, Cesar A Hincapié, Sarah Heldner, Lukas Bütikofer, Armando Lenz, Bruno R da Costa, Harald M Bonel, Richard K Jones, Gillian A Hawker and 1 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · bronzeAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in JAMA, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02363712 (Biomechanical Therapy for Osteoarthritis of the Knee), which is not on this map. Cited by 19 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
4.9field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT02363712 nacompletednot on this map

Biomechanical Therapy for Osteoarthritis of the Knee: a Randomized Controlled Trial(BIOTOK)

TypeinterventionalSponsorInsel Gruppe AG, University Hospital BernRan2015 to 2017Enrolled220ConditionsOsteoarthritis, KneeArmsAPOS shoe, Sham-APOS shoe
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 48 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Updates in the Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis.Revista brasileira de ortopedia · 2024
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 7 institutions in 4 countries.

Stephan ReichenbachInstitute for Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
David T FelsonArthritis Research UK Centre for Epidemiology, Centre for Musculoskeletal Research, Faculty of Biology, Medicine, and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, England.
Cesar A HincapiéApplied Health Research Centre, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Sarah HeldnerInstitute for Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Lukas BütikoferClinical Trials Unit, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Armando LenzClinical Trials Unit, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Bruno R da CostaApplied Health Research Centre, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Harald M BonelDepartment for Diagnostic, Interventional, and Pediatric Radiology, Bern University Hospital, Bern, Switzerland.
Richard K JonesCentre for Health Sciences Research, School of Health Sciences, University of Salford Manchester, Manchester, England.
Gillian A HawkerDepartment of Medicine and Institute of Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Peter JüniApplied Health Research Centre, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
University of Bern · CHUniversity of Toronto · CAInstitute of Social and Preventive Medicine · CHManchester Academic Health Science Centre · GBUniversitätsklinik Balgrist · CHUniversity Hospital of Bern · CHUniversity of Salford · GB

Funding

Research and Evaluation Support Core Unit (RESCU Core)P30AR072571 · NIAMS · BOSTON UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CAMPUS · PI Michael Paul Lavalley · 2019 to 2026
$6.9M
NIAMS NIH HHS P30 AR072571
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

importanceIndividually calibrated biomechanical footwear therapy may improve pain and physical function in people with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis, but the benefits of this therapy are unclear.

objectiveTo assess the effect of a biomechanical footwear therapy vs control footwear over 24 weeks of follow-up. DESIGN, SETTING, AND

participantsRandomized clinical trial conducted at a Swiss university hospital. Participants (N = 220) with symptomatic, radiologically confirmed knee osteoarthritis were recruited between April 20, 2015, and January 10, 2017. The last participant visit occurred on August 15, 2017.

interventionsParticipants were randomized to biomechanical footwear involving shoes with individually adjustable external convex pods attached to the outsole (n = 111) or to control footwear (n = 109) that had visible outsole pods that were not adjustable and did not create a convex walking surface. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was knee pain at 24 weeks of follow-up assessed with the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain subscore standardized to range from 0 (no symptoms) to 10 (extreme symptoms). The secondary outcomes included WOMAC physical function and stiffness subscores and the WOMAC global score, all ranging from 0 (no symptoms) to 10 (extreme symptoms) at 24 weeks of follow-up, and serious adverse events.

resultsAmong the 220 randomized participants (mean age, 65.2 years [SD, 9.3 years]; 104 women [47.3%]), 219 received the allocated treatment and 213 (96.8%) completed follow-up. At 24 weeks of follow-up, the mean standardized WOMAC pain subscore improved from 4.3 to 1.3 in the biomechanical footwear group and from 4.0 to 2.6 in the control footwear group (between-group difference in scores at 24 weeks of follow-up, -1.3 [95% CI, -1.8 to -0.9]; P < .001). The results were consistent for WOMAC physical function subscore (between-group difference, -1.1 [95% CI, -1.5 to -0.7]), WOMAC stiffness subscore (between-group difference, -1.4 [95% CI, -1.9 to -0.9]), and WOMAC global score (between-group difference, -1.2 [95% CI, -1.6 to -0.8]) at 24 weeks of follow-up. Three serious adverse events occurred in the biomechanical footwear group compared with 9 in the control footwear group (2.7% vs 8.3%, respectively); none were related to treatment. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among participants with knee pain from osteoarthritis, use of biomechanical footwear compared with control footwear resulted in an improvement in pain at 24 weeks of follow-up that was statistically significant but of uncertain clinical importance. Further research would be needed to assess long-term efficacy and safety, as well as replication, before reaching conclusions about the clinical value of this device.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02363712.

Indexed as

ShoesAdultBiomechanical PhenomenaBiomedical EngineeringEquipment DesignFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansKnee JointMaleMiddle AgedOsteoarthritis, KneePainPain ManagementPain MeasurementQuality of Life

Identifiers

PMID32396180
PMCPMC7218497
OpenAlexW3024297443

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.