↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Unraveling the confusion behind hyaluronic acid efficacy in the treatment of symptomatic knee osteoarthritis

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Pain Research, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
48 Mendeley
Title
Unraveling the confusion behind hyaluronic acid efficacy in the treatment of symptomatic knee osteoarthritis
Published in
Journal of Pain Research, June 2016
DOI 10.2147/jpr.s110675
Pubmed ID
Authors

Larry E. Miller, Roy Altman, Louis McIntyre

Abstract

Hyaluronic acid (HA) is a commonly prescribed treatment for knee pain resulting from osteoarthritis (OA). Although numerous HA products have been approved for use by the US Food and Drug Administration, the efficacy of HA injections for knee OA remains disputed with meta-analyses and societal clinical guidelines drawing disparate conclusions. The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) recently published a best-evidence systematic review and concluded that available data did not support the routine use of HA for knee OA. The purpose of the current article is to highlight issues that confound interpretation of meta-analyses on HA for knee OA, to provide realistic estimates of the true efficacy of HA injections in knee OA, and to provide commentary on the methods and conclusions from the AAOS systematic review. In general, the clinical benefit of HA is underestimated using conventional meta-analytic techniques. When accounting for differential control group effects in HA studies, it can be reasonably concluded that HA injections may be beneficial to an appreciable number of patients with knee OA. In addition, the systematic review methodology used by AAOS was questionable due to exclusion of numerous relevant studies and inclusion of studies that used HAs not approved for use in the US, both of which underestimated the true efficacy of HA injections. Overall, the efficacy of HA injections for knee OA is likely better than previously reported. Future clinical trials and meta-analyses should account for differential control group effects in order to avoid the continued confusion surrounding HA injection efficacy.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Mexico 1 2%
Unknown 47 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 13%
Other 5 10%
Student > Master 5 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 8%
Student > Bachelor 3 6%
Other 10 21%
Unknown 15 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 29%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 6%
Engineering 3 6%
Neuroscience 3 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 4%
Other 6 13%
Unknown 17 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 01 August 2016.
All research outputs
#7,546,261
of 23,023,224 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Pain Research
#760
of 1,763 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#121,479
of 339,794 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Pain Research
#14
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,023,224 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,763 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 339,794 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.