Abstract
PICO question
 In horses with naturally occurring osteoarthritis, is treatment with intra-articular polyacrylamide gel more likely to reduce the severity of clinical signs associated with lameness when compared to treatment with intra-articular corticosteroid?
 
 Clinical bottom line
 Category of research question
 Treatment
 The number and type of study designs reviewed
 Twelve studies; four case series, three uncontrolled prospective studies, one non-blinded, non-randomised control trial, one non-blinded randomised control trial, two systematic reviews and one systematic review and meta-analysis
 Strength of evidence
 Weak
 Outcomes reported
 Studies examined: Clinical signs relating to lameness after use of corticosteroid or polyacrylamide gel to treat osteoarthritis; improvement in lameness and treatment success (including return to work in some papers)
 Conclusion
 It is not possible to recommend one treatment over the other given the absence of studies which provide direct comparison. This highlights the need for further controlled and comparative studies
 
 How to apply this evidence in practice
 The application of evidence into practice should take into account multiple factors, not limited to: individual clinical expertise, patient’s circumstances and owners’ values, country, location or clinic where you work, the individual case in front of you, the availability of therapies and resources.
 Knowledge Summaries are a resource to help reinforce or inform decision making. They do not override the responsibility or judgement of the practitioner to do what is best for the animal in their care.
 
Highlights
Clinical signs, arthrographs, synovial fluid analysis, a synovial membrane specimen, and bacteriology
Blood serum samples taken by jugular venipuncture for detection of alkaline phosphatase activity and serum sugar values immediately prior to intraarticular injection
Synovial fluid obtained by arthrocentesis from radiocarpal, intercarpal, metacarpophalangeal, metatarsophalangeal, tarsocrural, femoropatellar, and scapulohumeral joints
Summary
It is not possible to recommend one treatment over the other given the absence of studies which provide direct comparison This highlights the need for further controlled and comparative studies. There were four case series, three uncontrolled prospective studies, one non-blinded, non-randomised control trial, one non-blinded randomised control trial, two systematic reviews, and one systematic review and metaanalysis Both controlled trials investigated CS treatment one was poorly designed and did not use numerical or statistical data to support its conclusions. Both systematic reviews (one CS and one PAAG) were limited by the lack of controlled trials. The systematic review and meta-analysis (PAAG), whilst using a thorough literature search, was restricted by the lack of controlled trials and the heterogeneity of reported studies limited the statistical analysis that could be performed
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have