SynthesisMusculoskeletal care2026
Reporting Completeness of Usual Care Comparator Groups in Exercise-Based Trials for Knee Osteoarthritis: A Meta-Research Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Musculoskeletal care, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundExercise-based randomized controlled trials are essential for guiding the management of knee osteoarthritis, but their interpretability depends on transparent reporting of both intervention and comparator groups. The term usual care (UC) is frequently used as a comparator, yet its reporting quality remains unclear.
objectiveTo evaluate the reporting completeness of UC comparator groups in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of exercise-based interventions for knee osteoarthritis.
methodsThis systematic review included RCTs of exercise-based interventions for adults with knee osteoarthritis that used UC as a comparator. Searches were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, PEDro, CINAHL, and SPORTDiscus up to December 2024. Reporting completeness was assessed using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist and analysed using continuous and dichotomised approaches.
resultsSixty-seven RCTs were included. Reporting completeness of UC interventions was consistently low. Median TIDieR scores (range 0-12) were higher for exercise interventions (4.0; IQR 3-5) than for UC comparators (1.0; IQR 1-2). Continuous analyses detected significant differences between groups, whereas dichotomised analyses did not. Only 22.3% of exercise-based interventions achieved high reporting completeness. No improvement was observed after publication of the TIDieR checklist, and no meaningful association was found between methodological quality and reporting completeness.
conclusionsReporting of UC comparator groups in exercise-based RCTs for knee osteoarthritis is poor and has not improved over time. Although exercise interventions are better reported, overall completeness remains low, highlighting the need for improved reporting practices to support clearer interpretation of clinical trial evidence.
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.