Conclusion:  Meta-analyses have an important role in the implementation of evidence-based practice and shaping of future research. Despite the undoubted advantages, meta-analyses are no panacea. Caution, therefore, has to be applied when using the results of meta-analyses in clinical practice, due to methodological limitations of the meta-analyses and limitations in the primary studies used. “
“Osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee

is a common, debilitating condition. Twelve percent of people aged 60 years or older have symptomatic knee OA. With increasing global incidence of obesity, the prevalence of OA is set to dramatically rise Cartilage deterioration is a hallmark of the disease, but other areas are equally as important, such as changes to the subchondral bone. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has enabled us to view bone marrow lesions (BMLs) in selleck compound the subchondral bone, allowing progress to be made in understanding their natural history, effect on pain, structural deterioration and other factors. The focus of this review is to try to put a new clinical perspective for the patients with BMLs in relation to pain, functional decline and prognosis. “
“Aim:  To test whether treatment

with celecoxib reduces the incidence of gastroduodenal click here ulcers compared to diclofenac in Asian patients with osteoarthritis (OA) or rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with minimal significant risk factors. Methods:  Patients with a clinical diagnosis of OA or RA of at least 3 months were randomized to 12 weeks of double-blind treatment with celecoxib 100 mg twice daily (n = 440) or diclofenac 50 mg twice

daily (n = 440). The primary outcome was the gastric and/or duodenal ulcer rate at endpoint as determined by upper gastrointestinal endoscopy performed during the screening week, Inositol monophosphatase 1 and at endpoint. Results:  There was no significant difference in the overall incidence of gastroduodenal ulcers at 12-week endpoint for celecoxib compared to diclofenac (2.8%vs. 5.1%; Cochran–Mantel–Haenszel [CMH] χ2P = 0.083). However, there was a significantly lower incidence of gastric ulcers on celecoxib versus diclofenac (0.5%vs. 3.6%; CMH χ2P = 0.002). Approximately 59% of patients in both treatment groups had no visible gastric lesions at endpoint; and a similar proportion were found to have one or more erosions on celecoxib (n = 85; 21.4%) and diclofenac (N = 91; 23.3%). A survival analysis of time to ulcer was significant for gastric ulcers (log-rank P = 0.004), but not for duodenal ulcers, or for gastroduodenal ulcers combined. Fewer patients reported at least one adverse event on celecoxib compared to diclofenac (42.4%vs. 50.3%; χ2, 5.52; P = 0.019). Conclusions:  In Asian patients with minimal significant risk factors, treatment with celecoxib was associated with a modest but significantly reduced incidence of gastric ulcers at the end of 12 weeks.