Summary: Obesity is widely acknowledged as a risk factor for both the incidence and progression of osteoarthritis, and has a negative influence on outcomes. Loss of at least 10% of body weight, coupled with exercise, is recognized as a cornerstone in the management of obese patients with osteoarthritis, and can lead to significant improvement in symptoms, pain relief, physical function and health‐related quality of life. However, questions still remain surrounding optimal management. Given the significant health, social and economic burden of osteoarthritis, especially in obese patients, it is imperative to advance our knowledge of osteoarthritis and obesity, and apply this to improving care and outcomes. This paper overviews what is already known about osteoarthritis and obesity, discusses current key challenges and ongoing hypotheses arising from research in these areas, and finally, postulates what the future may hold in terms of new horizons for obese patients with osteoarthritis.

Aim: Muscle strength is an excellent indicator of general health when based on reliable measurements. Muscle strength data for a healthy population are rare or non‐existent. The aim of the present study was to measure a set of normal values for isometric and isokinetic muscle strength for all the major joint movements of the body and, from these data, to create a basis for comparison of the muscle strength of an individual with the expected value in a normal population.Methods: A randomly selected group, aged 20–80 years, from the Copenhagen City Heart Study were studied. The group was subgrouped according to age and gender. Isometric and isokinetic muscle strength was measured in each subject across the main joints in the body. A statistical model was developed that encompassed the three main muscle groups: upper limbs, trunk and lower limbs.Results: Muscle strength in healthy men decreases in a linear fashion from the age of 25 years down to between 54% and 89% at the age of 75 years, and seems not highly dependent on any other parameter than age. For women, the muscle strength is dependent on weight and is only related to age from around 40 years of age. The decrease in muscle strength from the age around 40 to 75 years is 48–92%. For most muscle groups, men are 1.5–2 times stronger than women, with the oldest men having strength similar to that observed among the youngest women.Conclusion: We developed a model to compare the isometric and isokinetic muscle strength of all the major joint movements of an individual with values for a healthy man or woman at any age in the range of 20–80 years. In all age groups, women have lower muscle strength than men. Men’s muscle strength declines with age, while women’s muscle strength declines from the age of 41 years.

Background: Injection therapy with glucocorticoids has been used since the 1950s as a treatment strategy for lateral epicondylitis (tennis elbow). Lately, several novel injection therapies have become available. Purpose: To assess the comparative effectiveness and safety of injection therapies in patients with lateral epicondylitis. Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: Randomized controlled trials comparing different injection therapies for lateral epicondylitis were included provided they contained data for change in pain intensity (primary outcome). Trials were assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Network (random effects) meta-analysis was applied to combine direct and indirect evidence within and across trial data using the final end point reported in the trials, and results for the arm-based network analyses are reported as standardized mean differences (SMDs). Results: Seventeen trials (1381 participants; 3 [18%] at low risk of bias) assessing injection with 8 different treatments—glucocorticoid (10 trials), botulinum toxin (4 trials), autologous blood (3 trials), platelet-rich plasma (2 trials), and polidocanol, glycosaminoglycan, prolotherapy, and hyaluronic acid (1 trial each)—were included. Pooled results (SMD [95% confidence interval]) showed that beyond 8 weeks, glucocorticoid injection was no more effective than placebo (−0.04 [−0.45 to 0.35]), but only 1 trial (which did not include a placebo arm) was at low risk of bias. Although botulinum toxin showed marginal benefit (−0.50 [−0.91 to −0.08]), it caused temporary paresis of finger extension, and all trials were at high risk of bias. Both autologous blood (−1.43 [−2.15 to −0.71]) and platelet-rich plasma (−1.13 [−1.77 to −0.49]) were also statistically superior to placebo, but only 1 trial was at low risk of bias. Prolotherapy (−2.71 [−4.60 to −0.82]) and hyaluronic acid (−5.58 [−6.35 to −4.82]) were both more efficacious than placebo, whereas polidocanol (0.39 [−0.42 to 1.20]) and glycosaminoglycan (−0.32 [−1.02 to 0.38]) showed no effect compared with placebo. The criteria for low risk of bias were only met by the prolotherapy and polidocanol trials. Conclusion: This systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials found a paucity of evidence from unbiased trials on which to base treatment recommendations regarding injection therapies for lateral epicondylitis.