Table 3

HA (combined HMW and LMW) vs CONT or IAS at time of best response

OutcomeComparisonNMA ES (95% CI)Number of studiesTMA ES (95% CI)I2 (%)Egger's p value
WOMAC painHA vs CONT−0.19 (−0.32 to −0.06)7−0.19 (−0.32 to −0.06)48.90.26
HA vs IAS−0.06 (−0.28 to 0.16)2−0.06 (−0.28 to 0.17)NANA
IAS vs CONT−0.13 (−0.39 to 0.13)NANANANA
WOMAC stiffnessHA vs CONT−0.12 (−0.27 to 0.03)6−0.12(−0.27 to 0.03)55.10.51
HA vs IAS−0.17 (−0.50 to 0.16)1−0.17 (−0.36 to 0.01)NANA
IAS vs CONT0.05 (−0.31 to 0.41)NANANANA
WOMAC functionHA vs CONT−0.19 (−0.32 to −0.05)7−0.19 (−0.32 to −0.05)50.80.38
HA vs IAS−0.29 (−0.53 to −0.05)2−0.30 (−0.58 to −0.01)NANA
IAS vs CONT0.10 (−0.18 to 0.38)NANANANA
OARSI responderHA vs CONT1.11 (1.01 to 1.20)41.10 (1.01 to 1.19)00.27
HA vs IAS1.15 (1.02 to 1.30)21.15 (1.01 to 1.30)NANA
IAS vs CONT0.96 (0.82 to 1.11)NANANANA
  • Likelihood of statistical heterogeneity (I2 statistic with a value >50% representing important statistical heterogeneity) and publication bias (Egger's weighted regression statistic with a p<0.05 suggesting a higher likelihood of publication bias).

  • CONT, control; HA, hyaluronic acid; HMW, high molecular weight; IAS, intra-articular corticosteroids; LMW, low molecular weight; NA, not applicable; NMA, network meta-analysis; TMA, traditional meta-analysis.