Mylène Jansen

Systematic review and meta-analysis of KJD as treatment for OA 25 2 Table 1 : Included studies (continued) Study Level of evidence 23 Treatment # patients Follow-up in years Reference(s) Outcome measures Control groups Case series: microfracture and debridement III-2 Microfracture and debridement 42 Average 4 (3.6–6) Aly et al. 2011 14 JSW Osteoarthritis Initiative (OAI) III-1 None 138 5 Van der Woude et al. 2017a 17 JSW, MRI RCT: KJD vs TKA II TKA 40 1, 2 Van der Woude et al. 2017b 19 ; Jansen et al. 2019a 20 WOMAC, VAS pain, KOOS, EQ-5D, JSW RCT: KJD vs HTO II HTO 46 1, 2 Van der Woude et al. 2017c 21 ; Jansen et al. 2019a 20 WOMAC, VAS pain, KOOS, EQ-5D, JSW RCT MRI sub-cohort (abstract) III-1 HTO 17 2 Jansen et al . 2019c 22 MRI EQ-5D: EuroQol 5D; HTO: high tibial osteotomy JSW: joint space width; KJD: knee joint distraction; KOOS: Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score; RCT: randomized controlled trial; TKA: total knee arthroplasty; VAS: Visual Analogue Scale; WOMAC: Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index. The risk of bias for the included articles is shown in Figure 2. As blinding of patients and personnel was not possible in any study and blinding of outcome measures only for structural parameters, none of the included articles had a completely low risk of bias. Only the RCTs (Jansen 2019a, Van der Woude 2017b/c) had a low selection bias and only Jansen 2018 had a high bias for incomplete outcome data because of loss of patients during the long follow- up time. Aly 2011 had a high reporting bias because no precision/uncertainty of outcome measures is reported. Aly 2011 and Deie 2007 had an unclear risk of other bias because no clear study design was used. All other studies have an unclear risk of other bias because they all come from the same research group. Lastly, Jansen 2019b and Jansen 2019c had a lot of unclear bias since they are conference abstracts and as such did not report all information required to judge. No indication for publication bias was found.