ArticleJB & JS open access
Intra-articular Hyaluronic Acid for Knee Osteoarthritis: Stabilizing Utilization Trends Amid Conflicting Clinical Practice Guidelines.
Article in JB & JS open access. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Evidence has been mixed about the efficacy of intra-articular hyaluronic acid (HA) for knee osteoarthritis. This has led to conflicting clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) over the years. After the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) issued a strong recommendation against HA in 2013, a claims-based study showed rapid decline in use. More recent endorsements from Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) in 2019 and the Veterans Affairs and Department of Defense (VA-DoD) in 2020 may have altered this trajectory. This study aimed to gauge contemporary utilization of HA knee injections. Methods: All patients aged 18 years and older diagnosed with knee osteoarthritis were identified from the 2010Q1-2023Q1 PearlDiver database. The percentage of patients receiving intra-articular HA relative to the number of patients diagnosed for knee osteoarthritis was calculated quarterly. Linear regression analyses were segmented by 2 key CPG inflection points: 2013Q3 AAOS' recommendation against HA injections and the 2019Q4 endorsements. Analyses were also stratified by provider specialty. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. Results: A total of 16,581,526 knee OA patients were identified, among which HA knee injections were performed for 1,886,788 (11.4%). For the post-2013 AAOS CPG period (2013Q3-2019Q3), injection rates decreased (-0.10% per quarter; p < 0.001). However, following OARSI/VA-DoD endorsement (2019Q4-2023Q1), the slope leveled to -0.003% per quarter; p = 0.921. Through the study period, utilization declined for both women and men and both younger and older patients (<50 years old and ≥ 50 years old) (p < 0.001 for all). Utilization declined among orthopaedic surgeons, nonoperative musculoskeletal specialists, and primary care physicians, while utilization increased among pain medicine physicians (p < 0.001 for all). Conclusions: Intra-articular HA injection use decreased after the 2013 CPG from AAOS but has stabilized after more positive 2019 and 2020 CPGs from OARSI/VA-DoD. Notably, practice patterns are diverging patterns across specialties, suggesting variabilities in use. Level of Evidence: Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
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.