↓ Skip to main content

Knee orthoses for treating patellofemoral pain syndrome

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
45 tweeters
facebook
5 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
254 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Knee orthoses for treating patellofemoral pain syndrome
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010513.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Toby O Smith, Benjamin T Drew, Toby H Meek, Allan B Clark

Abstract

Patellofemoral pain syndrome (PFPS) is a painful musculoskeletal condition, which is characterised by knee pain located in the anterior aspect (front) and retropatellar region (behind) of the knee joint. Various non-operative interventions are suggested for the treatment of this condition. Knee orthoses (knee braces, sleeves, straps or bandages) are worn over the knee and are thought to help reduce knee pain. They can be used in isolation or in addition to other treatments such as exercise or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medications. To assess the effects (benefits and harms) of knee orthoses (knee braces, sleeves, straps or bandages) for treating PFPS. We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register (11 May 2015), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2015 Issue 5), MEDLINE (1946 to 8 May 2015), EMBASE (1980 to 2015 Week 18), SPORTDiscus (1985 to 11 May 2015), AMED (1985 to 8 May 2015), CINAHL (1937 to 11 May 2015), PEDro (1929 to June 2015), trial registries and conference proceedings. Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled clinical trials evaluating knee orthoses for treating people with PFPS. Our primary outcomes were pain and function. Two review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility, assessed study risk of bias and extracted data. We calculated mean differences (MD) or, where pooling data from different scales, standardised mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for continuous outcomes and risk ratios (RR) with 95% CIs for binary outcomes. We pooled data using the fixed-effect model. We included five trials (one of which was quasi-randomised) that reported results for 368 people who had PFPS. Participants were recruited from health clinics in three trials and were military recruits undergoing training in the other two trials. Although no trials recruited participants who were categorised as elite or professional athletes, military training does comprise intensive exercise regimens. All five trials were at high risk of bias, including performance bias reflecting the logistical problems in these trials of blinding of participants and care providers. As assessed using the GRADE approach, the available evidence for all reported outcomes is 'very low' quality. This means that we are very uncertain about the results.The trials covered three different types of comparison: knee orthosis and exercises versus exercises alone; one type of orthosis versus another; and knee orthosis versus exercises. No trials assessed the mode of knee orthosis use, such as whether the orthosis was worn all day or only during physical activity. Two trials had two groups; two trials had three groups; and one trial had four groups.All five trials compared a knee orthosis (knee sleeve, knee brace, or patellar strap) versus a 'no treatment' control group, with all participants receiving exercises, either through a military training programme or a home-based exercise programme. There is very low quality evidence of no clinically important differences between the two groups in short-term (2 to 12 weeks follow-up) knee pain based on the visual analogue scale (0 to 10 points; higher scores mean worse pain): MD -0.46 favouring knee orthoses, 95% CI -1.16 to 0.24; P = 0.19; 234 participants, 3 trials). A similar lack of clinically important difference was found for knee function (183 participants, 2 trials). None of the trials reported on quality of life measures, resource use or participant satisfaction. Although two trials reported on the impact on sporting or occupational participation, one trial (35 participants) did not provide data split by treatment group on the resumption of sport activity and the other reported only on abandonment of military training due to knee pain (both cases were allocated a knee orthosis). One trial (59 participants, 84 affected knees) recording only adverse events in the two knee orthoses (both were knee sleeves) groups, reported 16 knees (36% of 44 knees) had discomfort or skin abrasion.Three trials provided very low quality evidence on single comparisons of different types of knee orthoses: a knee brace versus a knee sleeve (63 participants), a patella strap with a knee sleeve (31 participants), and a knee sleeve with a patellar ring versus a knee sleeve only (44 knees). None of three trials found an important difference between the two types of knee orthosis in pain. One trial found no clinically important difference in function between a knee brace and a knee sleeve. None of the three trials reported on quality of life, resource use or participant satisfaction. One trial comparing a patella strap with a knee sleeve reported that both participants quitting military training due to knee pain were allocated a knee sleeve. One poorly reported trial found three times as many knees with adverse effects (discomfort or skin abrasion) in those given knee sleeves with a patella ring than those given knee sleeves only.One trial compared a knee orthosis (knee brace) with exercise (66 participants). It found very low quality evidence of no clinically important difference between the two intervention groups in pain or knee function. The trial did not report on quality of life, impact on sporting or occupational participation, resource use, participant satisfaction or complications. Overall, this review has found a lack of evidence to inform on the use of knee orthoses for treating PFPS. There is, however, very low quality evidence from clinically heterogeneous trials using different types of knee orthoses (knee brace, sleeve and strap) that using a knee orthosis did not reduce knee pain or improve knee function in the short term (under three months) in adults who were also undergoing an exercise programme for treating PFPS. This points to the need for good-quality clinically-relevant research to inform on the use of commonly-available knee orthoses for treating PFPS.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 45 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 254 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 250 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 66 26%
Student > Bachelor 33 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 11%
Researcher 21 8%
Student > Postgraduate 17 7%
Other 43 17%
Unknown 47 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 76 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 55 22%
Sports and Recreations 22 9%
Psychology 6 2%
Engineering 6 2%
Other 27 11%
Unknown 62 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 42. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 April 2020.
All research outputs
#521,351
of 15,749,622 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,352
of 11,276 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,848
of 367,350 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#46
of 216 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,749,622 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,276 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 367,350 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 216 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.