Objective Inflammation plays a central role in the pathophysiology of rheumatic diseases as well as in osteoarthritis. Temperature, which can be quantified using infrared thermography, provides information about the inflammatory component of joint diseases. This systematic review aims at assessing infrared thermography potential and limitations in these pathologies. Design A systematic review was performed on 3 major databases: PubMed, Cochrane library, and Web of Science, on clinical reports of any level of evidence in English language, published from 1990 to May 2021, with infrared thermography used for diagnosis of osteoarthritis and rheumatic diseases, monitoring disease progression, or response to treatment. Relevant data were extracted, collected in a database, and analyzed for the purpose of this systematic review. Results Of 718 screened articles 32 were found to be eligible for inclusion, for a total of 2094 patients. Nine studies reported the application to osteoarthritis, 21 to rheumatic diseases, 2 on both. The publication trend showed an increasing interest in the last decade. Seven studies investigated the correlation of temperature changes with osteoarthritis, 16 with rheumatic diseases, and 2 with both, whereas 2 focused on the pre-post evaluation to investigate treatment results in patients with osteoarthritis and 5 in patients with rheumatic diseases. A correlation was shown between thermal findings and disease presence and stage, as well as the clinical assessment of disease activity and response to treatment, supporting infrared thermography role in the study and management of rheumatic diseases and osteoarthritis. Conclusions The systematic literature review showed an increasing interest in this technology, with several applications in different joints affected by inflammatory and degenerative pathologies. Infrared thermography proved to be a simple, accurate, noninvasive, and radiation-free method, which could be used in addition to the currently available tools for screening, diagnosis, monitoring of disease progression, and response to medical treatment.

Objective The aim of this meta-analysis was to study the evidence on pain sensitization in knee osteoarthritis (OA), providing a quantitative synthesis of its prevalence and impact. Factors associated with pain sensitization were also investigated. Methods Meta-analysis; PubMed (MEDLINE), Cochrane Central Register (CENTRAL), and Web of Science were searched on February 2021. Level I to level IV studies evaluating the presence of pain sensitization in patients with symptomatic knee OA, documented through a validated method (questionnaires or quantitative sensory testing), were included. The primary outcome was the prevalence of pain sensitization. Factors influencing the prevalence were also evaluated, as well as differences in terms of pain thresholds between knee OA patients and healthy controls. Results Fifty-three articles including 7,117 patients were included. The meta-analysis of proportion documented a prevalence of pain sensitization of 20% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 16%-26%) with a significant heterogeneity of results ( I2 = 89%, P < 0.001). The diagnostic tool used was the main factor influencing the documented prevalence of pain sensitization ( P = 0.01). Knee OA patients presented higher pain sensitivity compared with healthy controls, both in terms of local pressure pain threshold (standardized mean difference [SMD] = −1.00, 95% CI = −1.67 to −0.32, P = 0.007) and distant pressure pain threshold (SMD = −0.54, 95% CI = −0.76 to −0.31, P < 0.001). Conclusions Knee OA pain presents features that are consistent with a significant degree of pain sensitization. There is a high heterogeneity in the reported results, mainly based on the diagnostic tool used. The identification of the best methods to detect pain sensitization is warranted to correctly evaluate and manage symptoms of patients affected by knee OA. Registration: PROSPERO CRD42019123347.

Purpose The primary aim of this study was to assess the relationship between the metabolites lactate and pyruvate in the healing tendon after Achilles tendon rupture (ATR) and patient-reported outcome at 6 and 12 months. A secondary aim was to evaluate which underlying factors regulate lactate and pyruvate concentrations. Methods Lactate and pyruvate concentrations were measured two weeks post-operatively in both the healing- and healthy Achilles tendon in 109 patients (90 men, 19 women; mean age 40 ± 7.9 years). Patient demographics, degree of physical activity, timing of surgery, operation time, patient-reported loading and step counts were investigated in relation to metabolite concentrations. At 6 and 12 months, the Achilles tendon Total Rupture Score (ATRS) questionnaire was used to assess patient outcome. Results The mean number of steps taken during the post-operative days 1–10 was the only factor significantly related to the mean concentration of lactate (R2 = 0.34, p = 0.038), and pyruvate (R2 = 0.46, p = 0.006). Pyruvate was demonstrated as the only factor significantly associated with ATRS at both 6 months (R2 = 0.32, p = 0.003) and at 12 months (R2 = 0.37, p = 0.004) using multiple linear regression. Conclusion The mean concentration of pyruvate during early ATR healing may predict patient outcome at 6 and 12 months post-operatively and possibly be used as a biomarker of healing. Early mobilization with an increased number of steps taken is an important clinical strategy to improve the metabolite concentrations during healing. Level of evidence III