You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 51, Issue 10
  • Is body mass index associated with patellofemoral pain and patellofemoral osteoarthritis? A systematic review and meta-regression and analysis

Article Text

Article menu

Download PDFPDF

Review
Is body mass index associated with patellofemoral pain and patellofemoral osteoarthritis? A systematic review and meta-regression and analysis
  1. Harvi F Hart1,2,
  2. Christian J Barton2,
  3. Karim M Khan1,
  4. Henrik Riel3,
  5. Kay M Crossley2
  1. 1Centre for Hip Health and Mobility, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
  2. 2La Trobe Sport and Exercise Medicine Research Centre, School of Allied Health, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Victoria, Australia
  3. 3Research Unit for General Practice in Aalborg, Department of Clinical Medicine, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark
  1. Correspondence to Professor Kay M Crossley, La Trobe Sport and Exercise Medicine Research Centre, School of Allied Health, College of Science, Health and Engineering, La Trobe University, Bundoora, VIC 3086, Australia; k.crossley{at}latrobe.edu.au

Abstract

Background Patellofemoral pain (PFP) occurs frequently, and may be related to patellofemoral osteoarthritis (PFOA). Obesity is associated with increased risk of knee OA. This systematic review involves a meta-regression and analysis to determine the relationship between body mass index (BMI) and PFP and PFOA, and to determine the link between BMI and interventional outcomes.

Methods We searched seven electronic databases and reference lists of relevant papers and systematic reviews, for cross-sectional, prospective, human-based observational and interventional studies reporting BMI in individuals with PFP or PFOA compared to healthy controls. Two independent reviewers appraised methodological quality (epidemiological appraisal instrument). Where possible, data from prospective studies were pooled to conduct meta-regression and case–control, and intervention studies to conduct meta-analysis using the following categories: adolescents with PFP, adults with PFP and PFOA.

Results 52 studies were included. We found greater BMI in adults with PFP (standardised mean difference: 0.24, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.36) and PFOA (0.73, 0.46 to 0.99) compared to healthy controls, but not in adolescents with PFP (−0.19, −0.56 to 0.18). We also observed statistical trends (p<0.10) towards higher BMI being a predictor for development of PFP in adults (0.34, −0.04 to 0.71). No significant link between BMI and intervention outcomes in adults with PFP was identified.

Conclusions Higher BMI is present in PFP and PFOA, but not in adolescents with PFP.

PROSPERO registration number CRD42015024812.

  • Body mass index
  • Osteoarthritis

https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2016-096768

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Introduction

    Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is a leading cause of pain and disability worldwide.1 Obesity is known to be related to knee OA,2 ,3 and can be estimated from a person's body mass index (BMI). Higher BMI increases the risk of developing knee OA,4 and these data are clearly synthesised in previous systematic reviews.5 ,6 The patellofemoral (PF) joint is a dominant source of symptoms associated with knee OA.7 This subpopulation of knee OA may require different management approaches to other knee-related OA, and possibly forms part of a continuum with patellofemoral pain (PFP),8 seen frequently in adolescents and adults.9

    The PF joint plays a critical role in knee joint function, particularly during daily activities involving large ranges of flexion such as squatting, stair ascent and descent, where it is subjected to loads ∼ 2 to 3×BW.10 Thus, any increase in body mass will heighten the load on the PF joint, potentially increasing joint stress and structural deterioration. The association of BMI with PFP and PFOA has not been systematically evaluated. Owing to the modifiable status of obesity, identifying whether BMI is a risk factor for, or associated with symptoms in PFP and PFOA, and how it affects conservative intervention outcomes could have important clinical implications. This systematic review and meta-analysis and regression aimed to evaluate whether BMI is (1) a risk factor for PFP development; (2) higher in individuals already diagnosed with PFP and PFOA compared to healthy controls; and (3) linked to intervention outcomes in people with PFP and PFOA.

    Methods

    The study protocol was developed in consultation with guidelines provided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement. The protocol was prospectively registered on the PROSPERO International prospective register for systematic reviews website (http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO) (registration number: CRD42015024812). The reporting of this study followed the PRISMA checklist.

    Literature search strategy

    Using guidelines provided by the Cochrane Collaboration, a comprehensive search strategy was devised from the following electronic databases with no date restrictions: (1) MEDLINE via OVID; (2) EMBASE via OVID; (3) CINAHL via EBSCO; (4) Scopus; (5) Web of Science; and (6) SPORTDiscus. The MEDLINE search strategy was adapted for other databases. The primary search strategy included a search for systematic reviews on PFP and PFOA conducted over the past 5 years (2010–2015). Reference lists of systematic reviews identified in the search were manually searched and eligible publications were identified. The secondary search strategy included a search for original publications. Keywords included ‘patellofemoral’ (patella-femoral or patell*), ‘PFJ’, ‘osteoarthritis’ (OA, osteoarthrit*), ‘anterior knee pain’, ‘knee pain’, ‘patellofemoral pain syndrome’, ‘body mass index’ (BMI), ‘body weight’ ‘body mass’, ‘overweight’ (over-weight), ‘obesity’. Both search strategies were limited to the English language and full text (see online supplementary material A). Two reviewers (HFH and CJB) reviewed all titles returned by the database searches, and retrieved suitable abstracts. Where abstracts suggested that papers were potentially suitable, the full-text versions were screened and included in the review if they fulfilled the selection criteria. Reference lists of all publications considered for inclusion were manually searched recursively, and citation tracking was completed using Google Scholar until no additional eligible publications were identified.

    Selection criteria

    Three streams of studies were included:

    • Prospective human observational studies reporting BMI data for people who did and did not develop PFP or PFOA.

    • Cross-sectional human observational studies reporting BMI data in people with PFP or PFOA and a healthy control group.

    • Intervention studies reporting BMI data for responders and non-responders to intervention.

    No restrictions were placed on age, sex or method of recruitment. Reviews, case reports and unpublished studies, as well as non-human studies, were excluded.

    Assessment of methodological quality and risk of bias

    Two independent reviewers (HFH and HR), who remained blind to authors, affiliations and the publishing journal, rated the methodological quality of included studies using the Epidemiological Appraisal Instrument (EAI).11 The full version of the EAI was used for intervention studies and the modified version (excludes items related to intervention/treatment) was used for all other studies. The full version of EAI has 43 items (maximum score possible 86) and the modified version has 29 items (maximum score possible 58). Items were scored as ‘Yes’ (score=2), ‘Partial’ (score=1), ‘No’ (score=0), ‘Unable to determine’ (score=0), or ‘Not Applicable’ (items removed from scoring) and an average score ranging from 0 to 2 was calculated for each study. Studies were then classified as high quality (≥1.4), moderate quality (1.1–1.4) or poor quality (<1.1).11 Final study ratings for each reviewer were collated and examined for discrepancies. Any inter-rater disagreement was discussed in a consensus meeting, and unresolved items were taken to a third reviewer (KMC) for consensus.

    Data management and statistical analysis

    Data pertaining to BMI, body mass, height, age and sex were independently extracted and entered into an Excel spreadsheet. If sufficient data were not reported in the published article or online supplementary material provided, the corresponding author was contacted to request further data. If unsuccessful in obtaining BMI data, mean body mass and height data were used to estimate BMI (mass (kg)/height2 (m2)), and average SD for the pooled BMI data was used. If multiple studies presented data from one cohort, then the study with a larger sample size was included. Mean age data were used to categorise PFP in adolescents (10–19 years) and adults (>19 years).

    Data were divided into three categories:

    1. Adolescent PFP

    2. Adult PFP

    3. PFOA

    Where possible, data from prospective studies were pooled to conduct meta-regression (Software R, V.3.0.2). Standardised mean differences (SMD) with 95% CIs were used to estimate differences in BMI between those who did and did not develop PFP. Data from case–control and intervention studies were pooled to conduct meta-analysis (Review Manager 5.3). SMD with 95% CI were calculated for each BMI comparison, and random effects models were used for data pooling during meta-analysis. The magnitude of the pooled SMD was interpreted as follows: SMD ≥1.20 indicated larger effect, moderate effect if 0.60–1.19 and small effect if <0.60.12 Sensitivity analyses were conducted based on methodological quality by excluding studies rated as low quality from meta-analysis and regression. Since BMI data were estimated from average mass and height data if BMI data were not presented, sensitivity analyses were also conducted by excluding the studies for which BMI data were estimated from meta-analysis and regression. Statistical significance was set at p<0.05 and a statistical trend was defined as p<0.1.13

    A level of evidence was assigned based on the methodological quality ratings and homogeneity (p>0.05)/heterogeneity (p<0.05) of the pooled data. Definitions for ‘levels of evidence’ were guided by and adapted from recommendations made by van Tulder et al:14

    1. Strong evidence provided by pooled results derived from three or more studies, including a minimum of two high-quality studies, which were statistically homogeneous (p>0.05); may be associated with a statistically significant or non-significant pooled result

    2. Moderate evidence provided by statistically significant pooled results derived from multiple studies that were statistically heterogeneous (p<0.05), including at least one high-quality study; or from multiple moderate-quality or low-quality studies, which were statistically homogeneous (p>0.05)

    3. Limited evidence provided by results from one high-quality study or multiple moderate-quality or low-quality studies that are statistically heterogeneous (p<0.05)

    4. Very limited evidence provided by results from one moderate or low-quality study

    5. Conflicting evidence provided by pooled results that are insignificant and derived from multiple statistically heterogeneous studies (p<0.05) (regardless of quality).

    Results

    Search strategy, methodological quality and risk of bias

    The comprehensive search strategy identified 9843 titles, with the last search conducted on 10 November 2015 (figure 1). Following removal of duplicate publications and conference proceedings, titles of 7894 publications were evaluated. The full texts of 377 articles were retrieved, with 52 articles meeting the selection criteria. Fifty-two studies (39 case–control, 10 prospective, 3 intervention) were included in this systematic review (tables 1⇓–3). The average methodological quality scores ranged from 0.76 to 1.67 and the median score was 1.13 (tables 4 and 5).

    View this table:
    Table 1

    Characteristics of case–control studies included

    View this table:
    Table 2

    Characteristics of prospective studies included

    View this table:
    Table 3

    Characteristics of intervention studies included

    View this table:
    Table 4

    Continued

    View this table:
    Table 4

    Methodological quality ratings of case–control and prospective studies included using the modified Epidemiological Appraisal Instrument

    View this table:
    Table 5

    Methodological quality ratings of intervention studies included using the epidemiological appraisal instrument

    Figure 1
    Figure 1

    Search strategy.

    Is BMI a risk factor for PFP?

    In adolescents, a single high-quality prospective study revealed that BMI did not significantly increase the risk of developing PFP in adolescents (−0.17, −0.51 to 0.17, p=0.32 (equivalent to mean difference, 95% CI −0.66, −1.98 to 0.66))15 (figure 2). Nine prospective studies in adults with PFP were included in meta-regression. BMI data were estimates from mean body mass and height for five studies. Pooled data from nine studies (5 high-quality and 4 moderate-quality) showed that higher BMI did not increase the risk of developing PFP in adults (0.12, −0.01 to 0.26; I2=0%, p=0.08 (equivalent to mean difference, 95% CI 0.34, −0.04 to 0.71))16–24 (figure 2). Sensitivity analyses revealed that exclusion of low quality studies from meta-regression did not change the results (0.12, −0.04 to 0.28; I2=0%, p=0.13). Excluding studies for which BMI data were estimated from meta-regression did not change the results (0.16, −0.05 to 0.37; I2=0%, p=0.13).

    Figure 2
    Figure 2

    Standardised mean differences (SMD) (95% CI) for body mass index (BMI) in adolescents and adults with patellofemoral pain (PFP). SMD >0: BMI larger in individuals who developed PFP compared to individuals who did not develop PFP. SMD <0: BMI larger in individuals who did not develop PFP compared to individuals who developed PFP.

    Is BMI higher in people with PFP and PFOA?

    There was no significant difference in BMI between adolescents with PFP and healthy controls from two studies in adolescents (1 moderate-quality and 1 high-quality) (−0.19, −0.56 to 0.18; I2=0%, p=0.38 (equivalent to mean difference, 95% CI −0.54, −1.59 to 0.51))25 ,26 (figure 3). A total of 33 studies in adults with PFP were included in meta-analysis. BMI data were estimated from mean body mass and height for 25 studies. Pooled data from 33 (methodological quality: low=19, moderate=12, high=2) studies provided moderate evidence of higher BMI in adults with PFP compared to healthy controls (0.24, 0.12 to 0.36; I2=23%, p=0.0001 (equivalent to mean difference, 95% CI 0.84, 0.43 to 1.26))27–59 (figure 4). Sensitivity analyses revealed that exclusion of low-quality studies from meta-analysis did not change the results (0.25, 0.09 to 0.41, I2=12%, p=0.002). By excluding studies for which BMI data were estimated from meta-analysis, there was no significant difference between groups (0.22, −0.05 to 0.49, I2=43%, p=0.12). Four moderate-quality studies provided limited evidence of higher BMI in people with PFOA compared to healthy controls (0.73, 0.46 to 0.99; I2=0%, p<0.00001 (equivalent to mean difference, 95% CI 3.22, 2.22 to 4.23))60–63 (figure 5). Sensitivity analysis revealed that exclusion of studies for which BMI data were estimated from meta-analysis did not change the results (0.59, 0.24 to 0.93, I2=0%, p=0.0008).

    Figure 3
    Figure 3

    Standardised mean difference (SMD) for body mass index (BMI). SMD >0: BMI larger in adolescents with patellofemoral pain (PFP) compared to healthy controls. SMD <0: BMI larger in healthy controls compared with adolescents with PFP.

    Figure 4
    Figure 4

    Standardised mean difference (SMD) for body mass index (BMI). SMD >0: BMI larger in adults with patellofemoral pain (PFP) compared to healthy controls. SMD <0: BMI larger in healthy controls compared with adults with PFP.

    Figure 5
    Figure 5

    Standardised mean difference (SMD) for body mass index (BMI). SMD >0: BMI larger in adults with patellofemoral osteoarthritis (PFOA) compared to healthy controls. SMD <0: BMI larger in healthy controls compared with adults with PFOA.

    Is BMI linked to intervention outcomes?

    In adults with PFP, pooled data from three studies (3 moderate quality) showed no statistically significant link between BMI and intervention outcomes (−0.19, −0.49 to 0.11; I2=0%, p=0.22 (equivalent to mean difference, 95% CI −0.55, −1.74 to 0.65))64–66 (figure 6). There were no intervention studies available in adolescents with PFP and adults with PFOA who met the eligibility criteria.

    Figure 6
    Figure 6

    Standardised mean difference (SMD) for body mass index (BMI). SMD >0: BMI larger in individuals who successfully responded to intervention for patellofemoral pain (PFP) compared to those who did not successfully respond. SMD <0: BMI larger in individuals who did not successfully respond to intervention for PFP compared to those who successfully responded.

    Discussion

    Summary of findings

    This systematic review with meta-regression and analysis synthesised BMI in populations with PFP and PFOA, and included 52 (39 case–control, 10 prospective, 3 intervention) studies. Meta-regression revealed trends of higher BMI predicting PFP development in adults. Meta-analyses indicated that BMI is higher in adults with PFP (small effect) and PFOA (moderate effect), but not in adolescents with PFP compared to healthy controls.

    BMI in adolescents and adults with PFP and adults with PFOA

    This systematic review was the first to explore the association of BMI with PFP and PFOA. Our meta-analysis indicates that adolescents with PFP do not have higher BMI compared to pain-free controls. However, adults with PFP have greater BMI than those without. Also, people with PFOA have an even greater BMI than controls. This apparent progressive increase in BMI difference with age may be explained by considering physical activity levels in people with PFP. Research highlights that adolescents and adults with PFP reduce their levels of physical activity due to the persistent pain associated with the condition.67 ,68 Reduced physical activity can hasten higher BMI,69 which would increase patellofemoral joint loads and stress, potentially perpetuating and exacerbating the condition.70–72 It is plausible that increased PF stress, resulting from higher BMI,27–59 could be a contributing factor to cartilage degeneration. However, longitudinal prospective studies are needed to test this hypothesis.

    BMI and risk for PFP

    A trend that did not reach significance indicated that higher BMI may predict the development of PFP in adults. Obesity is a well-recognised risk factor for incidence and progression of knee OA.73 Mechanical and systemic mechanisms have been proposed to explain how increased body mass may contribute to the development of knee OA.74 In weight-bearing joints, obesity increases load on the joint, which in turn promotes cartilage degeneration.75 ,76

    Obesity is associated with OA in non-weight-bearing joints.77 ,78 Therefore, mechanical stress alone cannot explain this relationship. It has been suggested that adipokines produced by adipose tissue may alter the articular cartilage metabolism.79 Serum leptin levels have been identified in many joint tissues including chondrocytes, osteophytes, synovium and infrapatellar fat pad,80–83 and higher leptin levels were associated with the prevalence and incidence of radiographic knee OA.84 Obese individuals with knee OA had elevated release of Interleukin-6, known to be involved in inflammation, within their infrapatellar fat pad tissue.85 It is possible that increased production of Interleukin-6 may amplify the inflammation profile, thus contributing to cartilage degradation. Given that PFP is thought to be a precursor for PFOA,8 controlling BMI in adults with PFP may limit the mechanical and non-mechanical consequences and therefore slow or delay development and/or progression of PFOA. There are no known prospective studies investigating the impact of body mass (overweight/obesity) on progression of PFP and development and progression of PFOA. Longitudinal data will assist in determining if BMI predicts development and progression of PFP and PFOA.

    BMI and intervention outcomes

    Pooled data revealed that BMI was not associated with intervention outcomes in adults with PFP. This finding is consistent with previous research investigating prognostic factors for PFP.86 Based on the WHO guidelines, obesity is defined as BMI ≥30 kg/m2 and overweight as BMI ≥25 kg/m2.87 In this systematic review, the mean BMI of responders (24.0 kg/m2) and non-responders (24.6 kg/m2) to intervention was within normal range. It is plausible that BMI above the normal range (>25 kg/m2) may influence intervention outcomes. Furthermore, our finding that BMI does not predict intervention outcomes is based on pooled data from three studies in adults with PFP; therefore, it should be interpreted with caution. Better data reporting for responders and non-responders to interventions in future studies will aid in determining whether BMI (normal BMI, overweight, obese) predicts intervention outcomes.

    Limitations and future directions

    We acknowledge several limitations. First, all relevant studies were included in this systematic review, regardless of methodological quality. Therefore, it is possible that this systematic review is subject to bias through the inclusion of low-quality studies. However, the levels of evidence applied to the pooled data take into account quality, quantity and homogeneity of studies. Further to this, sensitivity analyses based on methodological quality revealed no differences in findings when data from low-quality studies were excluded. Second, we restricted the search to studies published in English. Inclusion of data from non-English language studies may alter the outcomes. Third, a small number of studies contributed to each meta-analysis (except for studies in adults with PFP) and meta-regression, and thus results of this systematic review should be interpreted with caution. Fourth, owing to only a limited number of relevant studies reporting BMI data, studies presenting average mass and height data were included in this systematic review and estimated mean BMI data were used in the analyses. Therefore, inclusion of these data may have influenced the overall results. Exclusion of these data from sensitivity analyses revealed no differences in findings of prospective studies in adults with PFP, and case–control studies in adults with PFOA. The difference in case–control studies in adults with PFP was not significant; however, this may represent a reduction in sample size from n=1101 (PFP=934; control=671) to n=555 (PFP=370; control=185).

    A final consideration is that there is a limitation associated with using BMI as a surrogate measure of body fat. BMI is a measure of excess body mass rather than excess body fat; thus, a higher muscle mass can influence the relationship between BMI and body fat. Future studies may consider using measures of body fat percentage such as dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) to further discern the impact of increased body fat and muscle mass on PFP. Furthermore, considering that BMI differences are absent in adolescents with PFP, small in adults with PFP and moderate in adults with PFOA, we propose that greater BMI or body fat may be related to pain persistence. However, further research is needed to explore this and understand the influence of body fat on disease progression, and how to address it.

    Implications

    PFOA is an important source of symptoms in knee OA, and is strongly associated with disability. Our systematic review revealed an association of higher BMI with PFP and PFOA conditions in adults.88 This has important clinical implications, as chronicity of these conditions can substantially add to disability. Further to this, obesity is also associated with a broad range of other health issues including diseases such as hypertension, Type II diabetes, knee OA, depression as well as physical and psychosocial impairments.89 Affliction of one or more of these chronic health conditions will significantly add to disease burden in individuals with PF conditions. Therefore, comprehensive management programmes targeting body weight in individuals with PF conditions (eg, physical interventions, exercise, education and nutrition) may aid in reducing physical disability90 and thus warrant intensive investigation.

    Conclusion

    Adults with PFP and PFOA have higher BMI compared with healthy controls, but no such association was observed in adolescents with PFP. To better understand the role of BMI in disease development and progression in populations with PFP and PFOA, longitudinal data are required.

    What are the findings?

    • Adults with patellofemoral pain have a higher body mass index than healthy controls.

    • Adults with patellofemoral osteoarthritis have a higher body mass index than healthy controls.

    • Body mass index does not appear to be linked to intervention outcomes in adults with patellofemoral pain.

    Acknowledgments

    The authors would like to acknowledge Dr Luke Prendergast for his assistance with the analysis.

    References

    1. ↵
      1. Cross M,
      2. Smith E,
      3. Hoy D, et al
      . The global burden of hip and knee osteoarthritis: estimates from the global burden of disease 2010 study. Ann Rheum Dis 2014;73:1323–30. doi:10.1136/annrheumdis-2013-204763
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    2. ↵
      1. Felson DT,
      2. Zhang Y,
      3. Hannan MT, et al
      . Risk factors for incident radiographic knee osteoarthritis in the elderly: the Framingham Study. Arthritis Rheum 1997;40:728–33. doi:10.1002/1529-0131(199704)40:4<728::AID-ART19>3.0.CO;2-D
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    3. ↵
      1. Felson DT,
      2. Anderson JJ,
      3. Naimark A, et al
      . Obesity and knee osteoarthritis. The Framingham Study. Ann Intern Med 1988;109:18–24. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-109-1-18
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    4. ↵
      1. Coggon D,
      2. Reading I,
      3. Croft P, et al
      . Knee osteoarthritis and obesity. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 2001;25:622–7. doi:10.1038/sj.ijo.0801585
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    5. ↵
      1. Jiang L,
      2. Tian W,
      3. Wang Y, et al
      . Body mass index and susceptibility to knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Joint Bone Spine 2012;79:291–7. doi:10.1016/j.jbspin.2011.05.015
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    6. ↵
      1. Zhou ZY,
      2. Liu YK,
      3. Chen HL, et al
      . Body mass index and knee osteoarthritis risk: a dose-response meta-analysis. Obesity (Silver Spring) 2014;22:2180–5. doi:10.1002/oby.20835
      OpenUrl
    7. ↵
      1. Hinman RS,
      2. Lentzos J,
      3. Vicenzino B, et al
      . Is patellofemoral osteoarthritis common in middle-aged people with chronic patellofemoral pain? Arthritis Care Res 2014;66:1252–7. doi:10.1002/acr.22274
      OpenUrlCrossRef
    8. ↵
      1. Thomas MJ,
      2. Wood L,
      3. Selfe J, et al
      . Anterior knee pain in younger adults as a precursor to subsequent patellofemoral osteoarthritis: a systematic review. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2010;11:201. doi:10.1186/1471-2474-11-201
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    9. ↵
      1. Wood L,
      2. Muller S,
      3. Peat G
      . The epidemiology of patellofemoral disorders in adulthood: a review of routine general practice morbidity recording. Prim Health Care Res Dev 2011;12:157–64. doi:10.1017/S1463423610000460
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    10. ↵
      1. Trepczynski A,
      2. Kutzner I,
      3. Kornaropoulos E, et al
      . Patellofemoral joint contact forces during activities with high knee flexion. J Orthop Res 2012;30:408–15. doi:10.1002/jor.21540
      OpenUrlPubMed
    11. ↵
      1. Genaidy AM,
      2. Lemasters GK,
      3. Lockey J, et al
      . An epidemiological appraisal instrument—a tool for evaluation of epidemiological studies. Ergonomics 2007;50:920–60. doi:10.1080/00140130701237667
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    12. ↵
      1. Hume P,
      2. Hopkins W,
      3. Rome K, et al
      . Effectiveness of foot orthoses for treatment and prevention of lower limb injuries: a review. Sports Med 2008;38:759–79. doi:10.2165/00007256-200838090-00005
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    13. ↵
      1. Bangalore S,
      2. Messerli FH
      . Of statistical significance: “trends” toward significance and optimism bias. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006;48:1471. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2006.07.011
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    14. ↵
      1. van Tulder M,
      2. Furlan A,
      3. Bombardier C, et al
      . Updated method guidelines for systematic reviews in the Cochrane collaboration back review group. Spine 2003;28:1290–9. doi:10.1097/01.BRS.0000065484.95996.AF
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    15. ↵
      1. Barber Foss KD,
      2. Hornsby M,
      3. Edwards NM, et al
      . Is body composition associated with an increased risk of developing anterior knee pain in adolescent female athletes? Phys Sportsmed 2012;40:13–19. doi:10.3810/psm.2012.02.1947
      OpenUrlPubMed
    16. ↵
      1. Boling MC,
      2. Padua DA,
      3. Marshall SW, et al
      . A prospective investigation of biomechanical risk factors for patellofemoral pain syndrome: the Joint Undertaking to Monitor and Prevent ACL Injury (JUMP-ACL) cohort. Am J Sports Med 2009;37:2108–16. doi:10.1177/0363546509337934
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    17. ↵
      1. Duvigneaud N,
      2. Bernard E,
      3. Stevens V, et al
      . Isokinetic assessment of patellofemoral pain syndrome: a prospective study in female recruits. Isokinet Exerc Sci 2008;16:213–19.
      OpenUrl
    18. ↵
      1. Milgrom C,
      2. Finestone A,
      3. Eldad A, et al
      . Patellofemoral pain caused by overactivity. A prospective study of risk factors in infantry recruits. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 1991;73:1041–3. doi:10.2106/00004623-199173070-00012
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    19. ↵
      1. Thijs Y,
      2. De Clercq D,
      3. Roosen P, et al
      . Gait-related intrinsic risk factors for patellofemoral pain in novice recreational runners. Br J Sports Med 2008;42:466–71. doi:10.1136/bjsm.2008.046649
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    20. ↵
      1. Thijs Y,
      2. Pattyn E,
      3. Van Tiggelen D, et al
      . Is hip muscle weakness a predisposing factor for patellofemoral pain in female novice runners? A prospective study. Am J Sports Med 2011;39:1877–82. doi:10.1177/0363546511407617
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    21. ↵
      1. Thijs Y,
      2. Van Tiggelen D,
      3. Roosen P, et al
      . A prospective study on gait-related intrinsic risk factors for patellofemoral pain. Clin J Sport Med 2007;17:437–45. doi:10.1097/JSM.0b013e31815ac44f
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    22. ↵
      1. Van Tiggelen D,
      2. Cowan S,
      3. Coorevits P, et al
      . Delayed vastus medialis obliquus to vastus lateralis onset timing contributes to the development of patellofemoral pain in previously healthy men: a prospective study. Am J Sports Med 2009;37:1099–105. doi:10.1177/0363546508331135
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    23. ↵
      1. Van Tiggelen D,
      2. Witvrouw E,
      3. Coorevits P, et al
      . Analysis of isokinetic parameters in the development of anterior knee pain syndrome: a prospective study in a military setting. Isokinet Exerc Sci 2004;12:223–8.
      OpenUrlWeb of Science
    24. ↵
      1. Witvrouw E,
      2. Lysens R,
      3. Bellemans J, et al
      . Intrinsic risk factors for the development of anterior knee pain in an athletic population. A two-year prospective study. Am J Sports Med 2000;28:480–9.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    25. ↵
      1. Patil S,
      2. Dixon J,
      3. White LC, et al
      . An electromyographic exploratory study comparing the difference in the onset of hamstring and quadriceps contraction in patients with anterior knee pain. Knee 2011;18:329–32. doi:10.1016/j.knee.2010.07.007
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    26. ↵
      1. Rathleff MS,
      2. Samani A,
      3. Olesen JL, et al
      . Neuromuscular activity and knee kinematics in adolescents with patellofemoral pain. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2013;45:1730–9. doi:10.1249/MSS.0b013e318292be30
      OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
    27. ↵
      1. Aminaka N,
      2. Gribble PA
      . Patellar taping, patellofemoral pain syndrome, lower extremity kinematics, and dynamic postural control. J Athl Train 2008;43:21–8. doi:10.4085/1062-6050-43.1.21
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    28. ↵
      1. Baldon Rde M,
      2. Nakagawa TH,
      3. Muniz TB, et al
      . Eccentric hip muscle function in females with and without patellofemoral pain syndrome. J Athl Train 2009;44:490–6. doi:10.4085/1062-6050-44.5.490
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    29. ↵
      1. Bazett-Jones DM,
      2. Cobb SC,
      3. Huddleston WE, et al
      . Effect of patellofemoral pain on strength and mechanics after an exhaustive run. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2013;45:1331–9. doi:10.1249/MSS.0b013e3182880019
      OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
    30. ↵
      1. Besier TF,
      2. Fredericson M,
      3. Gold GE, et al
      . Knee muscle forces during walking and running in patellofemoral pain patients and pain-free controls. J Biomech 2009;42:898–905. doi:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2009.01.032
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    31. ↵
      1. Boling MC,
      2. Bolgla LA,
      3. Mattacola CG, et al
      . Outcomes of a weight-bearing rehabilitation program for patients diagnosed with patellofemoral pain syndrome. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2006;87:1428–35. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2006.07.264
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    32. ↵
      1. Callaghan MJ,
      2. Oldham JA
      . Quadriceps atrophy: to what extent does it exist in patellofemoral pain syndrome? Br J Sports Med 2004;38:295–9. doi:10.1136/bjsm.2002.002964
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    33. ↵
      1. Caylor D,
      2. Fites R,
      3. Worrell TW
      . The relationship between quadriceps angle and anterior knee pain syndrome. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 1993;17:11–16. doi:10.2519/jospt.1993.17.1.11
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    34. ↵
      1. Chiu JK,
      2. Wong YM,
      3. Yung PS, et al
      . The effects of quadriceps strengthening on pain, function, and patellofemoral joint contact area in persons with patellofemoral pain. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2012;91:98–106. doi:10.1097/PHM.0b013e318228c505
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    35. ↵
      1. Crossley KM,
      2. Cowan SM,
      3. Bennell KL, et al
      . Knee flexion during stair ambulation is altered in individuals with patellofemoral pain. J Orthop Res 2004;22:267–74. doi:10.1016/j.orthres.2003.08.014
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    36. ↵
      1. Dierks TA,
      2. Manal KT,
      3. Hamill J, et al
      . Proximal and distal influences on hip and knee kinematics in runners with patellofemoral pain during a prolonged run. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2008;38:448–56. doi:10.2519/jospt.2008.2490
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    37. ↵
      1. Draper CE,
      2. Besier TF,
      3. Gold GE, et al
      . Is cartilage thickness different in young subjects with and without patellofemoral pain? Osteoarthr Cartil 2006;14:931–7. doi:10.1016/j.joca.2006.03.006
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    38. ↵
      1. Duffey MJ,
      2. Martin DF,
      3. Cannon DW, et al
      . Etiologic factors associated with anterior knee pain in distance runners. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2000;32:1825–32. doi:10.1097/00005768-200011000-00003
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    39. ↵
      1. Ferber R,
      2. Kendall KD,
      3. Farr L
      . Changes in knee biomechanics after a hip-abductor strengthening protocol for runners with patellofemoral pain syndrome. J Athl Train 2011;46:142–9. doi:10.4085/1062-6050-46.2.142
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    40. ↵
      1. Jensen R,
      2. Kvale A,
      3. Baerheim A
      . Is pain in patellofemoral pain syndrome neuropathic? Clin J Pain 2008;24:384–94. doi:10.1097/AJP.0b013e3181658170
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    41. ↵
      1. Joensen AM,
      2. Hahn T,
      3. Gelineck J, et al
      . Articular cartilage lesions and anterior knee pain. Scan J Med Sci Sports 2001;11:115–19. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0838.2001.011002115.x
      OpenUrl
    42. ↵
      1. Laprade J,
      2. Culham E
      . Radiographic measures in subjects who are asymptomatic and subjects with patellofemoral pain syndrome. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2003:172–82. doi:10.1097/01.blo.0000079269.91782.f5
    43. ↵
      1. Livingston LA,
      2. Mandigo JL
      . Bilateral rearfoot asymmetry and anterior knee pain syndrome. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2003;33:48–55. doi:10.2519/jospt.2003.33.1.48
      OpenUrlPubMed
    44. ↵
      1. McClinton S,
      2. Donatell G,
      3. Weir J, et al
      . Influence of step height on quadriceps onset timing and activation during stair ascent in individuals with patellofemoral pain syndrome. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2007;37:239–44. doi:10.2519/jospt.2007.2421
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    45. ↵
      1. McMoreland A,
      2. O'Sullivan K,
      3. Sainsbury D, et al
      . No deficit in hip isometric strength or concentric endurance in young females with mild patellofemoral pain. Isokinet Exerc Sci 2011;19:117–25.
      OpenUrl
    46. ↵
      1. Nakagawa TH,
      2. Moriya ET,
      3. Maciel CD, et al
      . Trunk, pelvis, hip, and knee kinematics, hip strength, and gluteal muscle activation during a single-leg squat in males and females with and without patellofemoral pain syndrome. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2012;42:491–501. doi:10.2519/jospt.2012.3987
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    47. ↵
      1. Näslund J,
      2. Waldén M,
      3. Lindberg LG
      . Decreased pulsatile blood flow in the patella in patellofemoral pain syndrome. Am J Sports Med 2007;35:1668–73. doi:10.1177/0363546507303115
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    48. ↵
      1. Ott B,
      2. Cosby NL,
      3. Grindstaff TL, et al
      . Hip and knee muscle function following aerobic exercise in individuals with patellofemoral pain syndrome. J Electromyogra Kinesiol 2011;21:631–7. doi:10.1016/j.jelekin.2011.04.006
      OpenUrl
    49. ↵
      1. Owings TM,
      2. Grabiner MD
      . Motor control of the vastus medialis oblique and vastus lateralis muscles is disrupted during eccentric contractions in subjects with patellofemoral pain. Am J Sports Med 2002;30:483–7.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    50. ↵
      1. Piva SR,
      2. Goodnite EA,
      3. Childs JD
      . Strength around the hip and flexibility of soft tissues in individuals with and without patellofemoral pain syndrome. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2005;35:793–801. doi:10.2519/jospt.2005.35.12.793
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    51. ↵
      1. Powers CM,
      2. Landel R,
      3. Perry J
      . Timing and intensity of vastus muscle activity during functional activities in subjects with and without patellofemoral pain. PhysTher 1996;76:946–55; discussion 56–67.
      OpenUrl
    52. ↵
      1. Saad MC,
      2. Felicio LR,
      3. Masullo Cde L, et al
      . Analysis of the center of pressure displacement, ground reaction force and muscular activity during step exercises. J Electromyogra Kinesiol 2011;21:712–18. doi:10.1016/j.jelekin.2011.07.014
      OpenUrl
    53. ↵
      1. Sacco Ide C,
      2. Konno GK,
      3. Rojas GB, et al
      . Functional and EMG responses to a physical therapy treatment in patellofemoral syndrome patients. J Electromyogra Kinesiol 2006;16:167–74.
      OpenUrl
    54. ↵
      1. Souza RB,
      2. Powers CM
      . Predictors of hip internal rotation during running: an evaluation of hip strength and femoral structure in women with and without patellofemoral pain. Am J Sports Med 2009;37:579–87. doi:10.1177/0363546508326711
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    55. ↵
      1. Stefanyshyn DJ,
      2. Stergiou P,
      3. Lun VM, et al
      . Knee angular impulse as a predictor of patellofemoral pain in runners. Am J Sports Med 2006;34:1844–51. doi:10.1177/0363546506288753
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    56. ↵
      1. Thomeé R,
      2. Renström P,
      3. Karlsson J, et al
      . Patellofemoral pain syndrome in young women. I. A clinical analysis of alignment, pain parameters, common symptoms and functional activity level. Scan J Med Sci Sports 1995;5:237–44.
      OpenUrl
    57. ↵
      1. Tuncyurek O,
      2. Ozkol M,
      3. Ozic U, et al
      . The role of patellar tendon morphometry on anterior knee pain. Surg Radiol Anat 2010;32:539–43. doi:10.1007/s00276-009-0610-z
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    58. ↵
      1. Willson JD,
      2. Davis IS
      . Lower extremity mechanics of females with and without patellofemoral pain across activities with progressively greater task demands. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 2008;23:203–11. doi:10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2007.08.025
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    59. ↵
      1. Wilson NA,
      2. Press JM,
      3. Koh JL, et al
      . In vivo noninvasive evaluation of abnormal patellar tracking during squatting in patients with patellofemoral pain. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 2009;91:558–66. doi:10.2106/JBJS.G.00572
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    60. ↵
      1. Crossley KM,
      2. Dorn TW,
      3. Ozturk H, et al
      . Altered hip muscle forces during gait in people with patellofemoral osteoarthritis. Osteoarthr Cartil 2012;20:1243–9. doi:10.1016/j.joca.2012.07.011
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    61. ↵
      1. Farrokhi S,
      2. Piva SR,
      3. Gil AB, et al
      . Association of severity of coexisting patellofemoral disease with increased impairments and functional limitations in patients with knee osteoarthritis. Arthritis Care Res 2013;65:544–51. doi:10.1002/acr.21866
      OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
    62. ↵
      1. Hoglund LT,
      2. Hillstrom HJ,
      3. Barr-Gillespie AE, et al
      . Frontal plane knee and hip kinematics during sit-to-stand and proximal lower extremity strength in persons with patellofemoral osteoarthritis: a pilot study. J Appl Biomech 2014;30:82–94. doi:10.1123/jab.2012-0244
      OpenUrl
    63. ↵
      1. Pohl MB,
      2. Patel C,
      3. Wiley JP, et al
      . Gait biomechanics and hip muscular strength in patients with patellofemoral osteoarthritis. Gait Posture 2013;37:440–4. doi:10.1016/j.gaitpost.2012.08.017
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    64. ↵
      1. Barton CJ,
      2. Menz HB,
      3. Crossley KM
      . Clinical predictors of foot orthoses efficacy in individuals with patellofemoral pain. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2011;43:1603–10. doi:10.1249/MSS.0b013e318211c45d
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    65. ↵
      1. Lan TY,
      2. Lin WP,
      3. Jiang CC, et al
      . Immediate effect and predictors of effectiveness of taping for patellofemoral pain syndrome: a prospective cohort study. Am J Sports Med 2010;38:1626–30. doi:10.1177/0363546510364840
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    66. ↵
      1. Vicenzino B,
      2. Collins N,
      3. Cleland J, et al
      . A clinical prediction rule for identifying patients with patellofemoral pain who are likely to benefit from foot orthoses: a preliminary determination. Br Sports Med 2010;44:862–6. doi:10.1136/bjsm.2008.052613
      OpenUrl
    67. ↵
      1. Rathleff MS,
      2. Rathleff CR,
      3. Olesen JL, et al
      . Is knee pain during adolescence a self-limiting condition? Prognosis of patellofemoral pain and other types of knee pain. Am J Sports Med 2016;44:1165–71. doi:10.1177/0363546515622456
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    68. ↵
      1. Stathopulu E,
      2. Baildam E
      . Anterior knee pain: a long-term follow-up. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2003;42:380–2. doi:10.1093/rheumatology/keg093
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    69. ↵
      1. Jebb SA,
      2. Moore MS
      . Contribution of a sedentary lifestyle and inactivity to the etiology of overweight and obesity: current evidence and research issues. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1999;31:S534–41. doi:10.1097/00005768-199911001-00008
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    70. ↵
      1. Lankhorst NE,
      2. Bierma-Zeinstra SM,
      3. van Middelkoop M
      . Factors associated with patellofemoral pain syndrome: a systematic review. Br J Sports Med 2013;47:193–206. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2011-090369
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    71. ↵
      1. Wyndow N,
      2. Collins N,
      3. Vicenzino B, et al
      . Is there a biomechanical link between patellofemoral pain and osteoarthritis? A narrative review. Sports Med 2016;46:1797–808.
      OpenUrl
    72. ↵
      1. Teichtahl AJ,
      2. Wluka AE,
      3. Wang Y, et al
      . Obesity and adiposity are associated with the rate of patella cartilage volume loss over 2 years in adults without knee osteoarthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 2009;68:909–13. doi:10.1136/ard.2008.093310
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    73. ↵
      1. Cooper C,
      2. Snow S,
      3. McAlindon TE, et al
      . Risk factors for the incidence and progression of radiographic knee osteoarthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2000;43:995–1000. doi:10.1002/1529-0131(200005)43:5<995::AID-ANR6>3.0.CO;2-1
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    74. ↵
      1. Felson DT
      . Does excess weight cause osteoarthritis and, if so, why? Ann Rheum Dis 1996;55:668–70. doi:10.1136/ard.55.9.668
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    75. ↵
      1. Mündermann A,
      2. Dyrby CO,
      3. Andriacchi TP
      . Secondary gait changes in patients with medial compartment knee osteoarthritis: increased load at the ankle, knee, and hip during walking. Arthritis Rheum 2005;52:2835–44. doi:10.1002/art.21262
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    76. ↵
      1. Maly MR,
      2. Costigan PA,
      3. Olney SJ
      . Contribution of psychosocial and mechanical variables to physical performance measures in knee osteoarthritis. Phys Ther 2005;85:1318–28.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    77. ↵
      1. Carman WJ,
      2. Sowers M,
      3. Hawthorne VM, et al
      . Obesity as a risk factor for osteoarthritis of the hand and wrist: a prospective study. Am J Epidemiol 1994;139:119–29.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    78. ↵
      1. Grotle M,
      2. Hagen KB,
      3. Natvig B, et al
      . Obesity and osteoarthritis in knee, hip and/or hand: an epidemiological study in the general population with 10 years follow-up. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2008;9:132. doi:10.1186/1471-2474-9-132
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    79. ↵
      1. Heidari B
      . Knee osteoarthritis prevalence, risk factors, pathogenesis and features: part I. Caspian J Inter Med 2011;2:205–12.
      OpenUrl
    80. ↵
      1. Ku JH,
      2. Lee CK,
      3. Joo BS, et al
      . Correlation of synovial fluid leptin concentrations with the severity of osteoarthritis. Clin Rheumatol 2009;28:1431–5. doi:10.1007/s10067-009-1242-8
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    81. ↵
      1. Dumond H,
      2. Presle N,
      3. Terlain B, et al
      . Evidence for a key role of leptin in osteoarthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2003;48:3118–29. doi:10.1002/art.11303
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    82. ↵
      1. Gegout PP,
      2. Francin PJ,
      3. Mainard D, et al
      . Adipokines in osteoarthritis: friends or foes of cartilage homeostasis? Joint, Bone Spine 2008;75:669–71. doi:10.1016/j.jbspin.2008.07.008
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    83. ↵
      1. Presle N,
      2. Pottie P,
      3. Dumond H, et al
      . Differential distribution of adipokines between serum and synovial fluid in patients with osteoarthritis. Contribution of joint tissues to their articular production. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2006;14: 690–5.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    84. ↵
      1. Karvonen-Gutierrez CA,
      2. Harlow SD,
      3. Mancuso P, et al
      . Association of leptin levels with radiographic knee osteoarthritis among a cohort of midlife women. Arthritis care Res 2013;65:936–44. doi:10.1002/acr.21922
      OpenUrlCrossRef
    85. ↵
      1. Distel E,
      2. Cadoudal T,
      3. Durant S, et al
      . The infrapatellar fat pad in knee osteoarthritis: an important source of interleukin-6 and its soluble receptor. Arthritis Rheum 2009;60:3374–7. doi:10.1002/art.24881
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    86. ↵
      1. Collins NJ,
      2. Bierma-Zeinstra SM,
      3. Crossley KM, et al
      . Prognostic factors for patellofemoral pain: a multicentre observational analysis. Br J Sports Med 2013;47:227–33. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2012-091696
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    87. ↵
      World Health Organization. Obesity: preventing and managing the global epidemic. Geneva, Switzerland, 1997 (June 3 to 5).
    88. ↵
      1. Hinman RS,
      2. Crossley KM
      . Patellofemoral joint osteoarthritis: an important subgroup of knee osteoarthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2007;46:1057–62. doi:10.1093/rheumatology/kem114
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    89. ↵
      1. Dixon JB
      . The effect of obesity on health outcomes. Mol Cell Endocrinol 2010;316:104–8. doi:10.1016/j.mce.2009.07.008
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    90. ↵
      1. Christensen R,
      2. Bartels EM,
      3. Astrup A, et al
      . Effect of weight reduction in obese patients diagnosed with knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Rheum Dis 2007;66:433–9. doi:10.1136/ard.2006.065904
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Twitter Follow Christian Barton @DrChrisBarton and Henrik Riel @Henrik_Riel and Kay Crossley @kaymcrossley

    • Contributors HFH, CJB, KMK and KMC were involved in the conception and design. HFH, CJB and KMC were involved in the search strategy. HFH, CJB and KMC were involved in the screening of the articles. HFH and KMC was involved in data extraction. HFH, HR and KMC were involved in the methodological quality ratings. HFH, CJB and KMC were involved in the data analysis. HFH, CJB, KMK, HR and KMC were involved in manuscript preparation. All authors were fully involved in the study and preparation of the manuscript. Each author has read and concurs with the content in the final revised manuscript.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Ethics approval This project was exempt from the local University Ethical Review Board as published data were pooled.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    Linked Articles