Skip to main content

Table 4 Factors predicting radiological progression

From: Prognostic factors for progression of osteoarthritis of the hip: a systematic review

Prognostic factor

Studies

Associations

Best-evidence synthesis

Patient variables

 No association

  Family history of OA

Moderate evidence for no association

 

3 cohorts [25, 60, 65]

No, no, no

  Body mass index

Moderate evidence for no association

 

4 cohorts [25, 50, 61, 65]

No, no, no, no

 Conflicting evidence

  Higher age at baseline or at first symptoms

Conflicting evidence

 

1 low risk of bias cohort [32]

4 cohorts [35, 50, 60, 65]

Positive

No, positive, positive, no

  Female

Conflicting evidence

 

1 low risk of bias cohort [32]

6 cohorts [25, 27, 35, 50, 60, 65]

Positive

No, no, no, no, positive, no

Disease characteristics

 Faster or more progression

  More limitations in physical function at baseline

Moderate evidence for more progression

 

1 low risk of bias cohort [32]

1 cohort [60]

Positive

Positive

  Hip pain present at baseline or on most days for a least 1 month in the past year

Moderate evidence for more progression

 

1 low risk of bias cohort [47]

1 cohort [60]

Positive

Positive

 No association

  Forestier’s disease

Moderate evidence for no association

 

3 cohorts [25, 50, 65]

No, no, no

  Diabetes mellitus

Limited evidence for no association

 

2 cohorts [25, 60]

No, no

  Bilateral hip OA

Limited evidence for no association

 

2 cohorts [25, 65]

No, no

  Generalized OA

Limited evidence for no association

 

2 cohorts [25, 65]

No, no

Chemical or imaging markers

 Faster or more progression

  Subchondral sclerosis

Moderate evidence for more progression

 

1 low risk of bias cohort [47]

1 cohort [33]

Positive

Positive

  Neck width of the femoral head

Limited evidence for more progression

 

1 low risk of bias cohort [21]

Positive

  Osteocalcin (OC)

Limited evidence for less progression

 

1 low risk of bias cohort [63]

Negative

 No association

  C-terminal telopeptide of collagen type I (CTX-I)

Strong evidence for no association

 

2 low risk of bias cohorts [53, 63]

No, no

  Cartilage oligomeric matrix protein (COMP)

Strong evidence for no association

 

3 low risk of bias cohorts [44, 53, 63]

1 cohort [26]

No, no, no

Positive

  N-terminal telopeptide of collagen type I (NTX-I)

Strong evidence for no association

 

2 low risk of bias cohorts [44, 63]

No, no

  N-terminal propeptide of procollagen type I (PINP)

Strong evidence for no association

 

2 low risk of bias cohorts [53, 63]

No, no

  N-terminal propeptide of procollagen type III (PIIINP)

Strong evidence for no association

 

2 low risk of bias cohorts [53, 63]

No, no

  High-sensitive C-reactive protein (hs-CRP)

Moderate evidence for no association

 

1 low risk of bias cohort [53]

1 cohort [45]

No

No

  Angle of the femoral head

Moderate evidence for no association

 

1 low risk of bias cohort [21]

2 cohorts [20, 65]

No

No, no

  Acetabular osteophytes only

Moderate evidence for no association

 

1 low risk of bias cohort [47]

1 cohort [33]

No

No

  N-terminal propeptide of procollagen type IIA (PIIANP)

Limited evidence for no association

 

1 low risk of bias cohort [63]

No

  Chondroitin sulphate 846 (CS846)

Limited evidence for no association

 

1 low risk of bias cohort [63]

No

  Cartilage glycoprotein 40 (YKL-40)

Limited evidence for no association

 

1 low risk of bias cohort [53]

No

  Matrix metalloproteinases (MMP-1)

Limited evidence for no association

 

1 low risk of bias cohort [53]

No

  Matrix metalloproteinases (MMP-3)

Limited evidence for no association

 

1 low risk of bias cohort [53]

No

  Neck length of the femoral head

Limited evidence for no association

 

1 low risk of bias cohort [21]

No

 Conflicting evidence

  Bone mineral content

Conflicting evidence

 

1 low risk of bias cohort [21]

Conflicted$

  Area/size of the hip joint

Conflicting evidence

 

1 low risk of bias cohort [21]

Conflicted$$

  C-terminal telopeptide of collagen type II (CTX-II)

Conflicting evidence

 

2 low risk of bias cohorts [53, 63]

1 cohort [59]

Positive, no

Positive

  Hyaluronic acid (HA)

Conflicting evidence

 

2 low risk of bias cohorts [53, 63]

1 cohort [23]

Positive, no

No

  Atrophic bone response (no osteophytes present)

Conflicting evidence

 

1 low risk of bias cohort [47]

3 cohorts [25, 50, 65]

No

Positive, positive, no

  Subchondral cysts

Conflicting evidence

 

1 low risk of bias cohort [47]

1 cohort [33]

Positive

No

  Decrease in joint space width at baseline

Conflicting evidence

 

1 low risk of bias cohort [32]

2 cohorts [25, 60]

Positive

No, positive

  Superior or (supero) lateral migration of the femoral head

Conflicting evidence

 

2 low risk of bias cohorts [32, 47]

2 cohorts [25, 50]

Positive, no

No, positive

  Higher K-L grade at baseline

Conflicting evidence

 

4 cohorts [33, 50, 60, 65]

No, positive, positive, no

  Acetabular index (Horizontal toit externe angle)

Conflicting evidence

 

2 cohorts [20, 65]

Conflicted$$$, no

  Wiberg’s center edge angle (CEA)

Conflicting evidence

 

2 cohorts [20, 65]

No, negative

  1. $BMC of superior (p = 0.009) and medial (p = 0.019) quart femoral head, arc regions 2–4 (p = 0.02, 0.001, 0.003, respectively), and the acetabular arc was higher in patients with progression than without progression. BMC of the femoral neck (p = 0.17), intertrochanteric area (p = 0.9), trochanteric area (p = 0.6), and inferior (p = 0.08) and lateral (p = 0.06) quart femoral head and arc region 1 (p = 0.19) of acetabular arc was not significantly different between patients with or without progression
  2. $$The area/size of superior (p = 0.002), medial (p = 0.002), inferior (p = 0.003), and lateral (p = 0.003) femoral head and of arc regions 2–4 (p = 0.007, 0.001 and 0.005 respectively) of acetabular arc was higher in patients with progression than without progression. The area/size of the femoral neck (p = 0.6), intertrochanteric area (p = 0.16), trochanteric area (p = 0.4), and arc region 1 (p = 0.2) of the acetabular arc was not significantly different between patients with progression and without progression.
  3. $$$A statistically significant association was found between the acetabular index and progression defined as ≥ 1 increase in joint space narrowing; however, no statistically significant association was found between the acetabular index and progression defined as ≥ 1 increase in K-L grade
Back to article page

Arthritis Research & Therapy

ISSN: 1478-6362

Contact us