Yong-Hyeon Baek

Background: We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of oriental medicine (OM) treatments as monotherapy and add-on therapy compared to conventional treatments for knee osteoarthritis and assess the quality of evidence for these results. OM treatment included acupuncture, herbal medicine, pharmacoacupuncture, and moxibustion. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Google Scholar, 4 Korean medical databases (KoreaMed, Korean Studies Information Service System, Research Information Service System, and Oriental Medicine Advanced Searching Integrated System), and one Chinese database (China National Knowledge Infrastructure) were searched for articles published between January 1, 2000, and January 1, 2021. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effect of OM interventions, single or combined with conventional treatments, on knee osteoarthritis were searched. The risk of bias and quality of evidence of the included studies were evaluated using the Cochrane Collaboration’s risk of bias tool and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methods, respectively. Results: A total of 3911 relevant studies were retrieved and only 23 studies were included for systematic review. Most of the studies showed a significant effect on knee osteoarthritis. 21 studies comparing single OM treatment with conventional treatment were included in the meta-analysis. The effect size of standardized mean difference (SMD) was analyzed as a “small effect” with 0.48 (95% CI −0.80 to −0.16, Z = 2.98, P = .003). In addition, a meta-analysis of 4 studies comparing integrative treatment with conventional treatment showed a “very large effect” with 1.52 (95% CI −2.09 to −0.95, Z = 5.19, P < .001). Conclusion: Our results suggest that single OM treatment and integrative treatment significantly reduce pain in patients with knee osteoarthritis. However, there is a limited number of RCTs considering integrative treatment which implies more related RCTs should be conducted in the future.