Release suggests running can reduce knee inflammation but a study of just 6 volunteers is far too small to draw a conclusion

Does the news release adequately quantify the benefits of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Not Satisfactory

The benefits of this approach are in no way quantified. The news release states that the amounts of inflammation markers decreased, but does not say by how much although the published study includes this information. It should be kept in mind that the inflammation markers are a proxy for what we really care about — actual rates of osteoarthritis. It is doubtful that measuring two biomarkers after a 30-minute run can tell us much about the impact of running over a lifetime.

In addition, the release does not mention that this is a pilot study and that only 11 subjects were used and only 6 actually completed the tests because synovial fluid is difficult to obtain from a healthy joint. The paper does include statistics, but the p values (the probability of obtaining a result equal to or exceeding what was actually observed) may not be of any use when applied to only 6 subjects. This does not seem to be a statistically valid study. The release was probably premature.

Does the news release adequately explain/quantify the harms of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

Possible harms are not discussed. The release hints that this benefit is there for “healthy” joints, but says nothing about joints with torn cartilage, already degrading joint surfaces or substantial osteoarthritis. The release notes that researchers plan more do more study of those with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries, but that is a tendon injury, not a joint injury.

There’s a concern that this release could send the wrong message to some runners. What about people who experience pain when they run? Should they continue to run, despite the pain, because running might be “chondroprotective.”

Does the news release seem to grasp the quality of the evidence?

Not Satisfactory

With only 6 successful subjects, the quality of evidence is lousy. But the release doesn’t comment on this at all or discuss any limitations of the study. It doesn’t even tell us how many subjects there were.

Does the news release identify funding sources & disclose conflicts of interest?

Not Satisfactory

There is no funding source listed, but there is also no funding source listed in the paper.  The authors do declare in the paper that there is no conflict of interest and what any conflict would be, considering that the “treatment” discussed is running, is a puzzle.

Our standard here is to require some discussion of funding sources. Even if no funding was provided, the release should say so.

Does the news release compare the new approach with existing alternatives?

Not Satisfactory

There is no mention of any alternatives. Many runners are told to switch to other forms of exercise as they get older to avoid joint pain. Do other forms of exercise produce the same benefits on inflammation?

Does the news release establish the true novelty of the approach?

Not Satisfactory

As stated in the review summary, many previous studies tried to determine whether running increases the risk of osteoarthritis. But the release doesn’t mention previous research and thus overstates the novelty of the new findings.

People with osteoarthritis are usually advised to continue to exercise. Because running is a high impact aerobic exercise it may sound counter-intuitive to continue running, but not necessarily novel.