Effects of X-ray–based diagnosis and explanation of knee osteoarthritis on patient beliefs about osteoarthritis management: A randomised clinical trial
Authors: Lawford Belinda J. , Bennell Kim L. , Ewald Dan , Li Peixuan , De Silva Anurika , Pardo Jesse , Capewell Barbara , Hall Michelle , Haber Travis , Egerton Thorlene , Filbay Stephanie , Dobson Fiona , Hinman Rana S. 
Published: February 2025

Background
Although X-rays are not recommended for routine diagnosis of osteoarthritis (OA), clinicians and patients often use or expect X-rays. We evaluated whether: (i) a radiographic diagnosis and explanation of knee OA influences patient beliefs about management, compared to a clinical diagnosis and explanation that does not involve X-rays; and (ii) showing the patient their X-ray images when explaining radiographic report findings influences beliefs, compared to not showing X-ray images.

Methods and findings
This was a 3-arm randomised controlled trial conducted between May 23, 2024 and May 28, 2024 as a single exposure (no follow-up) online survey. A total of 617 people aged ≥45 years, with and without chronic knee pain, were recruited from the Australian-wide community. Participants were presented with a hypothetical scenario where their knee was painful for 6 months and they had made an appointment with a general practitioner (primary care physician). Participants were randomly allocated to one of 3 groups where they watched a 2-min video of the general practitioner providing them with either: (i) clinical explanation of knee OA (no X-rays); (ii) radiographic explanation (not showing X-ray images); or (iii) radiographic explanation (showing X-ray images). Primary comparisons were: (i) clinical explanation (no X-rays) versus radiographic explanation (showing X-ray images); and (ii) radiographic explanation (not showing X-ray images) versus radiographic explanation (showing X-ray images). Primary outcomes were perceived (i) necessity of joint replacement surgery; and (ii) helpfulness of exercise and physical activity, both measured on 11-point numeric rating scales (NRS) ranging 0 to 10.
Compared to clinical explanation (no X-rays), those who received radiographic explanation (showing X-ray images) believed surgery was more necessary (mean 3.3 [standard deviation: 2.7] versus 4.5 [2.7], respectively; mean difference 1.1 [Bonferroni-adjusted 95% confidence interval: 0.5, 1.8]), but there were no differences in beliefs about the helpfulness of exercise and physical activity (mean 7.9 [standard deviation: 1.9] versus 7.5 [2.2], respectively; mean difference −0.4 [Bonferroni-adjusted 95% confidence interval: −0.9, 0.1]). There were no differences in beliefs between radiographic explanation with and without showing X-ray images (for beliefs about necessity of surgery: mean 4.5 [standard deviation: 2.7] versus 3.9 [2.6], respectively; mean difference 0.5 [Bonferroni-adjusted 95% confidence interval: −0.1, 1.2]; for beliefs about helpfulness of exercise and physical activity: mean 7.5 [standard deviation: 2.2] versus 7.7 [2.0], respectively; mean difference −0.2 [Bonferroni-adjusted 95% confidence interval: −0.7, 0.3]). Limitations of our study included the fact that participants were responding to a hypothetical scenario, and so findings may not necessarily translate to real-world clinical situations, and that it is unclear whether effects would impact subsequent OA management behaviours.

Conclusions
An X-ray–based diagnosis and explanation of knee OA may have potentially undesirable effects on people’s beliefs about management.

Trial registration
ACTRN12624000622505.