Objective: To estimate knee osteoarthritis (OA) risk following anterior cruciate ligament (ACL), meniscus or combined ACL and meniscus injury.Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis.Data sources: MEDLINE, Embase, SPORTDiscus, CINAHL and Web of Science until November 2018.Eligibility criteria for selecting studies: Prospective or retrospective studies with at least 2-year follow-up including adults with ACL injury, meniscal injury or combined injuries. Knee OA was defined by radiographs or clinical diagnosis and compared with the contralateral knee or non-injured controls.Study appraisal and synthesis: Risk of bias was assessed using the SIGN50 checklist. ORs for developing knee OA were estimated using random effects meta-analysis.Results: 53 studies totalling ∼1 million participants were included: 185 219 participants with ACL injury, mean age 28 years, 35% females, 98% surgically reconstructed; 83 267 participants with meniscal injury, mean age 38 years, 36% females, 22% confirmed meniscectomy and 73% unknown; 725 362 participants with combined injury, mean age 31 years, 26% females, 80% treated surgically. The OR of developing knee OA were 4.2 (95% CI 2.2 to 8.0; I²=92%), 6.3 (95% CI 3.8 to 10.5; I²=95%) and 6.4 (95% CI 4.9 to 8.3; I²=62%) for patients with ACL injury, meniscal injury and combined injuries, respectively.Conclusion: The odds of developing knee OA following ACL injury are approximately four times higher compared with a non-injured knee. A meniscal injury and a combined injury affecting both the ACL and meniscus are associated with six times higher odds compared with a non-injured knee. Large inconsistency (eg, study design, follow-up period and comparator) and few high-quality studies suggest that future studies may change these estimates.Clinical relevance: Patients sustaining a major knee injury have a substantially increased risk of developing knee OA, highlighting the importance of knee injury prevention programmes and secondary prevention strategies to prevent or delay knee OA development.PROSPERO registration number CRD42015016900

To investigate the benefits and harms of exercise therapy on physical and psychosocial health in people with multimorbidity. Systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Data sources MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL and CINAHL from 1990 to April 20th, 2020 and Cochrane reviews on the effect of exercise therapy for each of the aforementioned conditions, reference lists of the included studies, the WHO registry and citation tracking on included studies in Web of Science. RCTs investigating the benefit of exercise therapy in people with multi-morbidity, defined as two or more of the following conditions: osteoarthritis (of the knee or hip), hypertension, type 2 diabetes, depression, heart failure, ischemic heart disease, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease on at least one of the following outcomes: Health-related quality of life (HRQoL), physical function, depression or anxiety. Meta-analyses using a random-effects model to assess the benefit of exercise therapy and the risk of non-serious and serious adverse events according to the Food and Drug Administration definition. Meta-regression analyses to investigate the impact of pre-specified mediators of effect estimates. Cochrane ‘Risk of Bias Tool’ 2.0 and the GRADE assessment to evaluate the overall quality of evidence. Twenty-three RCTs with 3363 people, testing an exercise therapy intervention (mean duration 13.0 weeks, SD 4.0) showed that exercise therapy improved HRQoL (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.37, 95 % CI 0.14 to 0.61) and objectively measured physical function (SMD 0.33, 95 % CI 0.17 to 0.49), and reduced depression symptoms (SMD -0.80, 95 % CI -1.21 to -0.40) and anxiety symptoms (SMD -0.49, 95 % CI -0.99 to 0.01). Exercise therapy was not associated with an increased risk of non-serious adverse events (risk ratio 0.96, 95 % CI 0.53-1.76). By contrast, exercise therapy was associated with a reduced risk of serious adverse events (risk ratio 0.62, 95 % CI 0.49 to 0.78). Meta-regression showed that increasing age was associated with lower effect sizes for HRQoL and greater baseline depression severity was associated with greater reduction of depression symptoms. The overall quality of evidence for all the outcomes was downgraded to low, mainly due to risk of bias, inconsistency and indirectness. Exercise therapy appears to be safe and to have a beneficial effect on physical and psychosocial health in people with multimorbidity. Although the evidence supporting this was of low quality, it highlights the potential of exercise therapy in the management and care of this population.

Background: Digital health interventions for managing chronic conditions have great potential. However, the benefits and harms are still unclear. Objective: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the benefits and harms of digital health interventions in promoting physical activity in people with chronic conditions. Methods: We searched the MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases from inception to October 2022. Eligible randomized controlled trials were included if they used a digital component in physical activity promotion in adults with ≥1 of the following conditions: depression or anxiety, ischemic heart disease or heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, knee or hip osteoarthritis, hypertension, or type 2 diabetes. The primary outcomes were objectively measured physical activity and physical function (eg, walk or step tests). We used a random effects model (restricted maximum likelihood) for meta-analyses and meta-regression analyses to assess the impact of study-level covariates. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool, and the certainty of the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. Results: Of 14,078 hits, 130 randomized controlled trials were included. Compared with usual care or minimal intervention, digital health interventions increased objectively measured physical activity (end of intervention: standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.29, 95% CI 0.21-0.37; follow-up: SMD 0.17, 95% CI 0.04-0.31) and physical function (end of intervention: SMD 0.36, 95% CI 0.12-0.59; follow-up: SMD 0.29, 95% CI 0.01-0.57). The secondary outcomes also favored the digital health interventions for subjectively measured physical activity and physical function, depression, anxiety, and health-related quality of life at the end of the intervention but only subjectively measured physical activity at follow-up. The risk of nonserious adverse events, but not serious adverse events, was higher in the digital health interventions at the end of the intervention, but no difference was seen at follow-up. Conclusions: Digital health interventions improved physical activity and physical function across various chronic conditions. Effects on depression, anxiety, and health-related quality of life were only observed at the end of the intervention. The risk of nonserious adverse events is present during the intervention, which should be addressed. Future studies should focus on better reporting, comparing the effects of different digital health solutions, and investigating how intervention effects are sustained beyond the end of the intervention. Trial Registration: PROSPERO CRD42020189028; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=189028

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.

Objective Synthesise evidence for effectiveness of rehabilitation interventions following ACL and/or meniscal tear on symptomatic, functional, clinical, psychosocial, quality of life and reinjury outcomes. Design Overview of systematic reviews with Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation certainty of evidence. Data sources MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus and Cochrane Library. Eligibility criteria Systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials investigating rehabilitation interventions following ACL and/or meniscal tears in young adults. Results We included 22 systematic reviews (142 trials of mostly men) evaluating ACL-injured individuals and none evaluating isolated meniscal injuries. We synthesised data from 16 reviews evaluating 12 different interventions. Moderate-certainty evidence was observed for: (1) neuromuscular electrical stimulation to improve quadriceps strength; (2) open versus closed kinetic chain exercises to be similarly effective for quadriceps strength and self-reported function; (3) structured home-based versus structured in-person rehabilitation to be similarly effective for quadriceps and hamstring strength and self-reported function; and (4) postoperative knee bracing being ineffective for physical function and laxity. There was low-certainty evidence that: (1) preoperative exercise therapy improves self-reported and physical function postoperatively; (2) cryotherapy reduces pain and analgesic use; (3) psychological interventions improve anxiety/fear; and (4) whole body vibration improves quadriceps strength. There was very low-certainty evidence that: (1) protein-based supplements improve quadriceps size; (2) blood flow restriction training improves quadriceps size; (3) neuromuscular control exercises improve quadriceps and hamstring strength and self-reported function; and (4) continuous passive motion has no effect on range of motion. Conclusion The general level of evidence for rehabilitation after ACL or meniscal tear was low. Moderate-certainty evidence indicates that several rehabilitation types can improve quadriceps strength, while brace use has no effect on knee function/laxity.

Objective To investigate the impact of knee joint loading exercise on articular cartilage in people at risk of, or with established, knee osteoarthritis (OA) by conducting a systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Design We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. Data sources We performed a literature search with no restriction on publication year or language in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Web of Science up to September 2017. Eligibility criteria RCTs investigating the impact of exercise on MRI-assessed articular cartilage in people over 18 years of age. Results We included nine trials, including a total of 14 comparisons of cartilage morphometry, morphology and composition outcomes, of which two included participants at increased risk of knee OA and 12 included participants with knee OA. In participants at increased risk, one study comparison reported no effect on cartilage defects and one had positive effects on glycosaminoglycans (GAG). In participants with OA, six study comparisons reported no effect on cartilage thickness, volume or defects; one reported a negative effect and one no effect on GAG; two reported a positive effect and two no effect on collagen. Conclusions Knee joint loading exercise seems to not be harmful for articular cartilage in people at increased risk of, or with, knee OA. However, the quality of evidence was low, including some interventions studying activities considered outside the therapeutic loading spectrum to promote cartilage health.