Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Infographic. Comparative effectiveness of treatments for patellofemoral pain: a living systematic review with network meta-analysis
  1. Marinus Winters1,
  2. Kristian Damgaard Lyng1,
  3. Sinead Holden1,2,
  4. Carolina Bryne Lura1,
  5. Nicky J Welton3,
  6. Deborah M Caldwell3,
  7. Bill Vicenzino4,
  8. Adam Weir5,6,7,
  9. Michael Skovdal Rathleff1,8
  1. 1 Center for General Practice, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark
  2. 2 SMI, Department of Health Science and Technology, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark
  3. 3 Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
  4. 4 School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences: Physiotherapy, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
  5. 5 Sports Groin Pain Centre, Aspetar Orthopaedic and Sports Medicine Hospital, Doha, Qatar
  6. 6 Department of Orthopaedics, Erasmus MC University Medical Center for Groin Injuries, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
  7. 7 Sports Medicine and Exercise Clinic Haarlem (SBK), Haarlem, The Netherlands
  8. 8 Department of Clinical Medicine, Aalborg University, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark
  1. Correspondence to Dr Marinus Winters, Research Unit for General Practice in Aalborg, Department of Clinical Medicine, Aalborg Universitet Det Sundhedsvidenskabelige Fakultet, Aalborg, Denmark; marinuswinters{at}hotmail.com

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Introduction

Patellofemoral pain (PFP) is one of the most common knee complaints and negatively impacts daily living and quality of life.1 Despite its high prevalence, managing PFP is often challenging, with poor prognosis and a large variety of treatment strategies available.2 3

The need for a living systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA)

There are many systematic reviews that have investigated different head-to-head comparisons for treatment of PFP. However, the comparative effectiveness of all available treatments for PFP has never been investigated. This makes it challenging to decide on the most appropriate treatment. Additionally, systematic reviews need to be updated regularly to reflect the most recent and …

View Full Text

Footnotes

  • MW and KDL are joint first authors.

  • Twitter @marinuswinters, @_Kristianlyng, @Sinead_Holden, @Bill_Vicenzino

  • MW and KDL contributed equally.

  • Contributors KDL produced the infographic with revisions provided by MW, SH, CBL, NJW, DMC, BTV, AW and MSR. All authors read and consented to the content of the infographic.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

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

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.