Objective To update a systematic review on the association between knee extensor muscle weakness and the risk of incident knee osteoarthritis in women and men. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources Systematic searches in PubMed, EMBASE, SPORTDiscus, CINAHL, AMED and CENTRAL in May 2021. Eligible criteria for selecting studies Longitudinal studies with at least 2 years follow-up including baseline measure of knee extensor muscle strength, and follow-up measure of symptomatic or radiographic knee osteoarthritis. Studies including participants with known knee osteoarthritis at baseline were excluded. Risk of bias assessment was conducted using six criteria for study validity and bias. Grading of Recommendations Assessments, Development and Evaluation assessed overall quality of evidence. Meta-analysis estimated the OR for the association between knee extensor muscle weakness and incident knee osteoarthritis. Results We included 11 studies with 46 819 participants. Low quality evidence indicated that knee extensor muscle weakness increased the odds of symptomatic knee osteoarthritis in women (OR 1.85, 95% CI 1.29 to 2.64) and in adult men (OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.78), and for radiographic knee osteoarthritis in women: OR 1.43 (95% CI 1.19 to 1.71) and in men: OR 1.39 (95% CI 1.07 to 1.82). No associations were identified for knee injured populations except for radiographic osteoarthritis in men. Discussion There is low quality evidence that knee extensor muscle weakness is associated with incident symptomatic and radiographic knee osteoarthritis in women and men. Optimising knee extensor muscle strength may help to prevent knee osteoarthritis. PROSPERO registration number CRD42020214976.

The goal of the OPTIKNEE consensus is to improve knee and overall health, to prevent osteoarthritis (OA) after a traumatic knee injury. The consensus followed a seven-step hybrid process. Expert groups conducted 7 systematic reviews to synthesise the current evidence and inform recommendations on the burden of knee injuries; risk factors for post-traumatic knee OA; rehabilitation to prevent post-traumatic knee OA; and patient-reported outcomes, muscle function and functional performance tests to monitor people at risk of post-traumatic knee OA. Draft consensus definitions, and clinical and research recommendations were generated, iteratively refined, and discussed at 6, tri-weekly, 2-hour videoconferencing meetings. After each meeting, items were finalised before the expert group (n=36) rated the level of appropriateness for each using a 9-point Likert scale, and recorded dissenting viewpoints through an anonymous online survey. Seven definitions, and 8 clinical recommendations (who to target, what to target and when, rehabilitation approach and interventions, what outcomes to monitor and how) and 6 research recommendations (research priorities, study design considerations, what outcomes to monitor and how) were voted on. All definitions and recommendations were rated appropriate (median appropriateness scores of 7–9) except for two subcomponents of one clinical recommendation, which were rated uncertain (median appropriateness score of 4.5–5.5). Varying levels of evidence supported each recommendation. Clinicians, patients, researchers and other stakeholders may use the definitions and recommendations to advocate for, guide, develop, test and implement person-centred evidence-based rehabilitation programmes following traumatic knee injury, and facilitate data synthesis to reduce the burden of knee post-traumatic knee OA.

Importance: Lumber disc herniation surgery can reduce pain and disability. However, a sizable minority of individuals experience minimal benefit, necessitating the development of accurate prediction models.Objective: To develop and validate prediction models for disability and pain 12 months after lumbar disc herniation surgery.Design, Setting, and Participants: A prospective, multicenter, registry-based prognostic study was conducted on a cohort of individuals undergoing lumbar disc herniation surgery from January 1, 2007, to May 31, 2021. Patients in the Norwegian Registry for Spine Surgery from all public and private hospitals in Norway performing spine surgery were included. Data analysis was performed from January to June 2023.Exposures: Microdiscectomy or open discectomy.Main Outcomes and Measures: Treatment success at 12 months, defined as improvement in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) of 22 points or more; Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) back pain improvement of 2 or more points, and NRS leg pain improvement of 4 or more points. Machine learning models were trained for model development and internal-external cross-validation applied over geographic regions to validate the models. Model performance was assessed through discrimination (Cstatistic) and calibration (slope and intercept).Results: Analysis included 22 707 surgical cases (21 161 patients) (ODI model) (mean [SD] age, 47.0 [14.0] years; 12 952 [57.0%] males). Treatment nonsuccess was experienced by 33% (ODI), 27% (NRS back pain), and 31% (NRS leg pain) of the patients. In internal-external cross-validation, the selected machine learning models showed consistent discrimination and calibration across all 5 regions. TheCstatistic ranged from 0.81 to 0.84 (pooled random-effects meta-analysis estimate, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.81-0.84) for the ODI model. Calibration slopes (point estimates, 0.94-1.03; pooled estimate, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.93-1.06) and calibration intercepts (point estimates, −0.05 to 0.11; pooled estimate, 0.01; 95% CI, −0.07 to 0.10) were also consistent across regions. For NRS back pain, theCstatistic ranged from 0.75 to 0.80 (pooled estimate, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.75-0.79); for NRS leg pain, theCstatistic ranged from 0.74 to 0.77 (pooled estimate, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.74-0.76). Only minor heterogeneity was found in calibration slopes and intercepts.Conclusion: The findings of this study suggest that the models developed can inform patients and clinicians about individual prognosis and aid in surgical decision-making.

Objectives Critically appraise and summarise the measurement properties of knee muscle strength tests after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) and/or meniscus injury using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments Risk of Bias checklist. Design Systematic review with meta-analyses. The modified Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation-guided assessment of evidence quality. Data sources Medline, Embase, CINAHL and SPORTSDiscus searched from inception to 5 May 2022. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Studies evaluating knee extensor or flexor strength test reliability, measurement error, validity, responsiveness or interpretability in individuals with ACL and/or meniscus injuries with a mean injury age of ≤30 years. Results Thirty-six studies were included involving 31 different muscle strength tests (mode and equipment) in individuals following an ACL injury and/or an isolated meniscus injury. Strength tests were assessed for reliability (n=8), measurement error (n=7), construct validity (n=27) and criterion validity (n=7). Isokinetic concentric extensor and flexor strength tests were the best rated with sufficient intrarater reliability (very low evidence quality) and construct validity (moderate evidence quality). Isotonic extensor and flexor strength tests showed sufficient criterion validity, while isometric extensor strength tests had insufficient construct and criterion validity (high evidence quality). Conclusion Knee extensor and flexor strength tests of individuals with ACL and/or meniscus injury lack evidence supporting their measurement properties. There is an urgent need for high-quality studies on these measurement properties. Until then, isokinetic concentric strength tests are most recommended, with isotonic strength tests a good alternative.

Objectives To critically appraise and summarise measurement properties of functional performance tests in individuals following anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) or meniscal injury. Design Systematic review. Data sources Systematic searches were performed in Medline (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO) and SPORTSDiscus (EBSCO) on 7 July 2021. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Studies evaluating at least one measurement property of a functional performance test including individuals following an ACL tear or meniscal injury with a mean injury age of ≤30 years. The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments Risk of Bias checklist was used to assess methodological quality. A modified Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation assessed evidence quality. Results Thirty studies evaluating 26 functional performance tests following ACL injury were included. No studies were found in individuals with an isolated meniscal injury. Included studies evaluated reliability (n=5), measurement error (n=3), construct validity (n=26), structural validity (n=1) and responsiveness (n=1). The Single Leg Hop and Crossover Hop tests showed sufficient intrarater reliability (high and moderate quality evidence, respectively), construct validity (low-quality and moderate-quality evidence, respectively) and responsiveness (low-quality evidence). Conclusion Frequently used functional performance tests for individuals with ACL or meniscal injury lack evidence supporting their measurement properties. The Single Leg Hop and Crossover Hop are currently the most promising tests following ACL injury. High-quality studies are required to facilitate stronger recommendations of performance-based outcomes following ACL or meniscal injury.