Comparison of weight loss interventions in overweight and obese adults with knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized trials
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVE: To ascertain the comparative effectiveness of weight-loss strategies for osteoarthritis (OA) to develop rational treatment algorithms aimed at improving OA-related symptoms in overweight/obese individuals. DESIGN: Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched from inception to June 2023 for observational studies and randomized trials. Network meta-analyses were performed using a frequentist approach. Effect sizes for pain and function were computed as standardized mean differences, while change in body weight was computed as mean differences. RESULTS: 13 RCTs on knee OA (KOA) (2800 participants) with 7 interventions: diet (D); exercise (E); diet and exercise (DE); pharmacological (L); psychological (P); psychological, diet, and exercise (PDE); and Mediterranean diets (M) were networked. For weight change (kg), all interventions significantly outperformed control comparators, with effect sizes ranging from -11.2 (95% CI, -16.0, -6.5 kg) for the most effective approach (PDE) to -4.7 (95% CI, -6.7, -2.7 kg) for the least effective approach (DE). In terms of pain (0-20 scale), only DE outperformed control comparators (-2.2, 95% CI: -4.1, -0.21), whereas PDE was not superior to control comparators (-3.9, 95% CI: -8.4, 0.5) in improving the pain. Regardless of the chosen intervention, prediction intervals from meta-regression analysis indicate that significant pain relief may be anticipated when patients achieve at least a weight reduction of 7%. CONCLUSIONS: PDE and DE interventions may offer the most effective approach for weight loss, potentially leading to improvements in pain and physical function among overweight/obese individuals with KOA if they achieve more than 7% weight loss.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Traditional non-surgical weight loss interventions have shown variable success in optimising patients for surgery.
“Traditional non-surgical weight loss interventions, such as lifestyle modification and funded pathways within hospitals and the community, have shown variable success in optimising patients for surgery.”
From Evaluation of safety of preoperative GLP-1 receptor agonists in patients undergoing elective surgery: a systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression (2025) · cites this paper as [14]
There remains a clinical need for effective, scalable, and preoperatively applicable strategies for weight loss in surgical patients.
“Therefore, there remains a clinical need for effective, scalable, and preoperatively applicable strategies.14,15”
From Evaluation of safety of preoperative GLP-1 receptor agonists in patients undergoing elective surgery: a systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression (2025) · cites this paper as [14]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 39 · Cited by 34
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- [1]1. King LK, March L, Anandacoomarasamy A. Obesity & osteoar thritis. Indian J Med Res 2013;138:185-93.
- [9]9. Covidence systematic review software. Veritas Health Innovation: Melbourne, Australia. 〈 https://www.covidence.org/ 〉 .
- [16]16. Page P. Beyond statistical significance: clinical interpretation of rehabilitation research literature. Int J Sports Phys Ther 2014;9:726-36.
- Authors
- Shahid, A., Thirumaran, A. J., Christensen, R., Venkatesha, V., Henriksen, M., Bowden, J. L., & Hunter, D. J.
- Affiliations
- The University of Sydney (AU)
- University of Southern Denmark (DK)
- Royal North Shore Hospital (AU)
- Frederiksberg Hospital (DK)
- Corresponding author
- Bowden, Jocelyn L.
- Hunter, David J.
- Venue
- Osteoarthritis and Cartilage
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2025-04
- Volume
- 33
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 518-529
- ISSN
- 1063-4584 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4402206024
- Cited by
- 34
- References
- 39
- Citations by year
- 2026: 15 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 2
- FWCI
- 2.13
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Update notices
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Osteoarthritis and Cartilage (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- University of Southern Denmark Research Portal (University of Southern Denmark) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- Oak Foundation (OCAY-18-774-OFIL)
- NHMRC (1194737)
- Arthritis Australia
- University of Sydney
- Parker Institute for Cancer Immunotherapy
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Rheumatology › Osteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Obesity, Physical Activity, Diet
- Keywords
- knee osteoarthritis, weight loss interventions, obesity, overweight adults, diet, physical activity, Mediterranean diet, psychological intervention, pharmacological weight loss, pain, physical function, weight loss
- MeSH terms
- Network Meta-Analysis as Topic, Diet, Reducing, Humans, Obesity, Weight Loss, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Osteoarthritis, Knee, Diet, Mediterranean, Overweight, Weight Reduction Programs
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review