Evidence Hub

Biomechanical outcomes of pharmacological therapies for post-traumatic arthrofibrosis in preclinical animal models: a systematic review and meta-analysis

L. Palacios-Díaz, Ángel Antonio González-Garcia, P. Sánchez-Urgelles, S. Antuña, R. Barco

Connective Tissue Research, 2024

2 citations

Abstract

ABSTRACT Purpose/Aim of the study There is still no evidence of which drug has the greatest therapeutic potential for post-traumatic arthrofibrosis. The aim of this study is to systematically review the literature for quality evidence and perform a meta-analysis about the pharmacological therapies of post-traumatic arthrofibrosis in preclinical models. Materials and Methods A comprehensive and systematic search strategy was performed in three databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Science) retrieving studies on the effectiveness of pharmacological therapies in the management of post-traumatic arthrofibrosis using preclinical models in terms of biomechanical outcomes. Risk of bias assessment was performed using the SYRCLE’s risk of bias tool. A meta-analysis using a random-effects model was conducted if a minimum of three studies reported homogeneous outcomes for drugs with the same action mechanism. Results Forty-six studies were included in the systematic review and evaluated for risk of bias. Drugs from 6 different action mechanisms of 21 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, the methodological quality of the studies was poor. Statistically significant overall effect in favor of reducing contracture was present for anti-histamines (Chi2 p = 0.75, I2 = 0%; SMD (Standardized Mean Difference) = –1.30, 95%CI: −1.64 to −0.95, p < 0.00001) and NSAIDs (Chi2 p = 0.01, I2 = 63%; SMD= −0.93, 95%CI: −1.58 to −0.28, p = 0.005). Conclusions Anti-histamines, particularly…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in animal, not in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free