ReviewOsteoarthritis and cartilage open2025
Features and management of osteoarthritis from the perspective of individuals with osteoarthritis: A systematic review of qualitative studies.
Review in Osteoarthritis and cartilage open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Collaborative model of care between orthopaedics and allied health professionals in knee osteoarthritis (CONNACT): process evaluation of an effectiveness-implementation hybrid randomized control trial.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2025Trial
- The complexity of pain in osteoarthritis.Nature reviews. Rheumatology · 2026Review
- Prevalence and impact of sleep disorders in osteoarthritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Osteoarthritis and cartilage open · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To enable person-centered care, considering beliefs, needs, and priorities of individuals with osteoarthritis (OA) is crucial. Nevertheless, concepts that they consider important are not fully recapitulated in assessment and care. The aim of this study was to clarify how individuals with OA conceive, experience, and manage their OA and pain. Design: A systematic literature review was conducted including qualitative studies (interviews, focus groups, open questionnaires) regardless of OA joint location. Verbatim quotations relating to OA and OA-related pain were collected and merged in codes. Themes and categories relating to these codes were defined. Results: The seven databases yielded a total of 9585 studies of which 79 qualitative studies were selected. Analysis of 667 verbatim quotations of 2009 participants led to 117 codes and 24 themes. Themes were grouped into 2 categories, 'features' and 'management'. 'Features' encompassed experiences ranging from common challenges (e.g., adjust to reduced function) to high impact outcomes needing therapeutic attention (e.g., devastating pain). The 'management' category captured positive and negative conceptions associated with pharmacological and cognitive-behavioral self-management, psychoeducation, and interventions. Themes from both categories were classified into four domains: symptoms, functioning, psychological, and social. A fifth domain 'disease' was also used to categorize the themes under 'features'. Conclusions: Several themes reported by OA individuals are hardly represented in current assessment and recommendations, e.g., fatigue, sleep disturbance, psychosocial impact, and effects on family and caregivers. The reviewed beliefs, needs, and priorities may support individualized screening, complement existing assessment instruments, and can help refine interventions and psychoeducational materials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
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.