Abstract
Objective:
To quantify general population prevalence, and differences by sex and BMI, in ultrasound (US) features of knee osteoarthritis (KOA), patient-reported knee symptoms (Ksx), radiographic KOA (rKOA), and symptomatic KOA (sxKOA).
Methods:
Participants from the Johnston County Health Study (2019–2024; n=902) provided demographic, clinical, and imaging data. Ksx was defined as self-reported pain, aching or stiffness on most days of any one month in the past 12 months. rKOA was defined as Kellgren-Lawrence grade ≥2 (or total knee replacement (TKR)), severe rKOA as grades 3–4 (or TKR), and sxKOA as rKOA and Ksx in the same knee. Standardized US scoring was performed as previously reported. Weighted prevalence estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for Ksx, rKOA, sxKOA, severe rKOA, and US features were calculated overall and by sex and BMI category.
Results:
Among 902 participants (67% female; 66% non-Hispanic white, mean age 55 years, and BMI 33 kg/m2), the weighted prevalence of Ksx, rKOA, sxKOA, and severe rKOA were 61%, 36%, 27%, and 21%, respectively, all higher (based on non-overlapping CIs) than baseline estimates from the Johnston County Osteoarthritis Project and other cohorts. Ksx, rKOA, sxKOA, and severe rKOA were higher among females and those with obesity. Compared to females with obesity, those with severe obesity had higher prevalence of all radiographic outcomes at moderate and severe grades with non-overlapping CI. US effusion and synovitis were more prevalent in males, whereas medial and lateral cartilage damage were more common in females. With increasing obesity, osteophytes and medial cartilage damage were more prevalent, while gryescale effusion was actually less frequent.
Conclusion:
KOA prevalence continues to increase in the population. Sex and BMI differences in KOA prevalence and US features were most pronounced among females with severe obesity. Distinguishing between sexes and by obesity levels may improve understanding of KOA mechanisms and guide tailored prevention and treatment strategies.
Keywords: knee osteoarthritis, ultrasound, radiography, obesity
Osteoarthritis (OA) is a progressive joint disorder marked by anatomic and physiologic alteration of joint tissues and can be characterized by the degeneration of articular cartilage, subchondral bone remodeling, synovial inflammation, and osteophyte formation.1 These structural alterations result in clinical symptoms that can include joint pain, stiffness, and impaired mobility.1 OA is the most common form of arthritis in the United States and prevalence has been increasing over time.2 OA has a high impact on quality of life across different domains including physical function, body pain, social function, and vitality.3
The knee is the joint most commonly affected by OA. In 2019, knee OA (KOA) was estimated to affect around 365 million people worldwide.4 An estimated 14 million people in the US have symptomatic KOA.5 Symptoms of KOA are a leading cause of disability. One study found that hip and KOA was ranked as the 11th highest contributor to global disability.6 Epidemiologic studies consistently demonstrate that the prevalence and severity of OA vary by sex and body mass index (BMI). Females are at higher risk than males, and obesity is strongly associated with OA, particularly at the knee.2
Historically, conventional radiographs are the first diagnostic imaging modality utilized when OA is suspected.7 While radiographs have been the gold standard in research diagnosis of KOA using the Kellgren-Lawrence Grade (KLG), radiographs have low sensitivity and cannot identify early changes.7 MRI has the ability to visualize all structures within the knee including soft tissue and has been increasingly used in research to examine correlation between structural findings and symtpoms.7 Similar to MRI, ultrasound (US) also has ability to directly visualize soft tissue structures. US is lower cost, portable, and has become an increasingly utilized tool for OA in both clinical and research settings.8 Our group has developed a reliable standardized acquisition and scoring protocol9 and studied associations between radiographic and sonographic features in KOA.10 A systematic review of 89 studies evaluating US in OA found that US has good overall diagnostic performance, shows strong correlation with MRI findings, and offers greater sensitivity than radiography for detecting osteophytes.8
Despite well-established sex and obesity related disparities in KOA, no studies have assessed whether US-detected features relevant to KOA vary by these factors. Our objective was to characterize, in a descriptive prevalence study without a priori hypotheses, the prevalence of symptoms, radiographic, and symptomatic OA of the knee, as well as relevant US features in a community-based cohort overall and by sex and BMI.
Participants and Methods
The Johnston County Health Study (JoCoHS) is a prospective, community-based study that enrolled 902 adults residing in Johnston County, North Carolina, between 2019 and 2024. Participants were randomly recruited from household listings, regardless of OA status or symptoms. Eligible residents (ages 35–70, fluent in English or Spanish, and identifying as Black/African American, White, or Hispanic) provided informed consent and completed a single ~3-hour research clinic visit. No symptomatic, structural, or diagnostic criteria were required for inclusion in this population-based cohort. The JoCoHS is similar, but distinct from the prior Johnston County Osteoarthritis Project (JoCoOA); both enrolled community participants using a population-based survey strategy, but the earlier JoCoOA (1991–2018) included only Black or White men and women aged 45 years and older.11
Baseline assessments included questionnaires collecting data on demographics, comorbidities, clinical features and symptoms of KOA, along with knee US and radiographs of the knee using standardized acquisition and scoring, in all participants. Knee radiographs were obtained and graded for KLG by an experienced musculoskeletal radiologist with high reliability (inter-rater reliability κ=0.86; intra-rater κ=0.89).12 Standardized US images of each knee were also collected by a trained sonographer following a published protocol.9 All images were scored by two expert readers following a published atlas, with adjudication and final scoring by a third reader in cases of disagreement.9 More detailed methodology is detailed in our prior publication.10 The study was approved and monitored by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Institutional Review Board (#18–0438).
Variable Definitions
Age was calculated from date of birth to the clinic visit date. Sex, race/ethnicity, and history of knee injury were self-reported. Knee injury was defined as a “yes” response for either knee to the question: “Have you ever injured a joint badly enough that it limited your ability to walk for at least two days?” Height and weight were measured at the clinic visit to the nearest half centimeter and nearest pound, respectively, and body mass index (BMI) was calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared. Obesity categories were defined as underweight (<18.5 kg/m2), normal weight (18.5–24.9 kg/m2), overweight (25.0–29.9 kg/m2), obesity (30.0–39.9 kg/m2), and severe obesity (≥40.0 kg/m2).
Symptom and Radiographic Definitions
Knee symptoms (Ksx): self-reported pain, aching or stiffness (PAS) was scored based on its presence (yes/no) on “most days of any one month in the past 12 months” in each knee
Radiographic knee osteoarthritis (rKOA): defined as KLG ≥ 2 or total knee replacement (TKR)
Severe radiographic knee osteoarthritis (severe rKOA): defined as KLG ≥ 3 or TKR
Symptomatic radiographic knee osteoarthritis (sxKOA): defined as combination of both Ksx and rKOA in the same joint
Ksx, rKOA, severe rKOA, and sxKOA were defined at the person-level if present in at least one knee.
Ultrasound Feature Definitions (see Yerich for complete details and images9)
Effusion and synovitis: Effusion and synovitis were graded both separately—effusion (yes/no), synovitis (none, minimal, moderate, severe)—and combined effusion/synovitis (none, minimal, moderate, severe), based on hypo/anechoic intra-articular material (effusion) and/or hypo/anechoic distention of the joint recess (synovitis) area size on static suprapatellar views in 30° flexion, each of these three scores were assigned independently but by the same reviewer
Suprapatellar PD: Assessed in a standardized manner on the suprapatellar longitudinal view (only) graded as absent (0), trace to 10% intra-articular color signal (1), 10–50% (2) or 50% or more intra-articular color signal (3)
Osteophytes: Graded 0–3 (none, small but distinct, medium/larger, large/bulky/prominent) in medial and lateral longitudinal views
Meniscal extrusion: Graded as presence (1) or absence (0) of meniscal tissue beyond the bony joint line
Cartilage damage: Defined on suprapatellar transverse view in 30° flexion as 0 = none, 1 = hyperechogenicity/loss of sharpness with maintained width, 2 = local thinning, 3 = complete loss, scored separately for medial and lateral compartments
Popliteal cysts: Graded 0 = absent, 1 = small/possible, 2 = definite
Calcium crystal deposition: Defined as present (yes/no) in suprapatellar, medial, lateral, or posterior views
US features were defined at the person-level if present in at least one knee. For features defined by more than two grades and not merely presence or absence, definitions are not mutually exclusive.
Statistical Analysis: Sampling and weights (see Supplemental Materials for additional detail)
In order to provide generalizable, population-based estimates, the cohort was collected according to a rigorous sampling strategy and the results were weighted to the population using the 2020 US Census data. A listing of households in Johnston County serviced by the United States Postal Service was obtained through Marketing Systems Group (MSG, Inc.). Among eight sampling strata, there were 79,388 household addresses, which served as the primary sampling unit. The clusters were defined as each household address, with a total of 1,117 households completing the eligibility survey, and 753 unique households from among the 902 participants completing enrollment. Raw weights for each member of the sample of responding residents were computed by multiplying the reciprocal of the 1) probability of randomly selecting a resident’s address, 2) address-level response rate within the same sampling stratum, and 3) person-level response rate for eligible residents within the same resident’s address. Final weights were derived as these raw weights multiplied by a post-stratification adjustment calibrated to the 2020 US Census for Johnston County, NC data. These post-stratification factors were 5-year age groups (8 groups: 35–39, 40–44, 45–49, 50–54, 55–59, 60–64, 65–69, and 70–74), sex (male, female), and race/ethnicity (NH White, NH Black, and Hispanic).
Statistical Analysis: Prevalence estimates
Primary analyses involved cross-sectional, person-level, weighted prevalence estimation using the SURVEYFREQ procedure in SAS version 9.4, to account for the stratified sampling design and survey weights and to produce prevalence estimates and corresponding 95% confidence intervals overall and by strata (sex or BMI group) for Ksx, rKOA, sxKOA, severe rKOA, and US features. Due to small cell sizes, no estimates are provided for the underweight category. All estimates were weighted to the 2020 Johnston County US Census population data and computed at the person level under a stratified sampling design. No formal hypothesis testing was performed between subgroups. Instead, confidence intervals (CIs) were used to indicate the precision of estimates, and the subgroup differences were interpreted based on CI overlap, such that non-overlapping CIs could be interpreted to provide a conservative assessment of statistically significant differences at the 0.05 level. Supplementary analysis stratified by side at the knee level (KLG), was performed for Ksx, rKOA, severe rKOA, and sxKOA (Supplemental Table A). These weighted estimates thus reflect the prevalence in Johnston County, NC and could be generalizable to the broader population of the Southeastern United States.
Results
Unweighted participant characteristics among 902 participants aged 35–74 years (mean [SD] 55.0 [9.6] years), indicated that most were female (67.2%) and non-Hispanic white (65.5%), with 24.1% identifying as non-Hispanic Black and 10.4% as Hispanic (Table 1). Compared with the 2020 Johnston County population, younger adults (aged 35–44 years) and males were underrepresented, whereas older adults and females were overrepresented. The mean BMI was 33.3 ± 8.3 kg/m2, 42.4% had obesity and 19.7% had severe obesity. A history of knee injury was reported by 27.9% of participants (Table 1). Of 902 participants, 861 individuals had US imaging (images were missing due to bilateral TKR [n=39, the contralateral knee was included for those with unilateral TKR], difficulty positioning/image quality [n=2]). No major demographic differences were noted between the group with US imaging and the overall group.
Table 1.
Unweighted and weighted* sample characteristics of the JoCoHS cohort 2019–2024, N=902.
| Characteristic | Unweighted n or mean |
Unweighted % or ± SD |
Weighted % or mean |
Weighted 95% CI |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age, Mean ± SD (range=35–70†) years | 55.0 | ± 9.6 | 52.5 | (51.5, 53.5) |
| Age Group, years (n, %) | ||||
| 35–44 | 163 | 18.1 | 27.9 | (23.8, 32.0) |
| 45–54 | 248 | 27.5 | 29.6 | (25.9, 33.4) |
| 55–64 | 309 | 34.3 | 25.2 | (22.1, 28.2) |
| 65–74 | 182 | 20.2 | 17.3 | (14.1, 20.5) |
| Sex (n, %) | ||||
| Female | 606 | 67.2 | 55.1 | (51.7, 58.4) |
| Male | 296 | 32.8 | 44.9 | (41.6, 48.3) |
| Race (n, %) | ||||
| Non-Hispanic (NH) White | 591 | 65.5 | 65.0 | (61.1, 68.8) |
| Non-Hispanic (NH) Black | 217 | 24.1 | 22.2 | (18.8, 25.7) |
| Hispanic | 94 | 10.4 | 12.8 | (10.1, 15.5) |
| BMI, Mean ± SD (range=17–71), kg/m2 | 33.3 | ± 8.3 | 33.1 | (32.4, 33.7) |
| BMI#, kg/m2 (n, %) | ||||
| Underweight (<18.5) | 6 | 0.7 | 0.6 | (0.0, 1.1) |
| Normal (18.5–24.9) | 121 | 13.4 | 13.0 | (10.2, 15.8) |
| Overweight (25–29.9) | 215 | 23.8 | 25.1 | (21.6, 28.5) |
| Obesity (30–39.9) | 382 | 42.4 | 43.2 | (39.3, 47.1) |
| Severe obesity (≥40) | 178 | 19.7 | 18.1 | (15.1, 21.1) |
| Knee injury (n, %) | ||||
| No injury on either knee | 650 | 72.1 | 71.5 | (67.9, 75.1) |
| Injury in at least one knee | 252 | 27.9 | 28.5 | (24.9, 32.1) |
JoCoHS: Johnston County Health Study; CI: confidence interval; SD: standard deviation; BMI: body mass index
Weighted to the 2020 US Census data for Johnston County, NC as the target population
While the JoCoHS eligibility was from 35–70 years, the US Census uses a 65–74 years age group, so the data were weighted to this category
CDC categories
Weighted prevalence estimates of symptom and radiographic outcomes by sex and BMI categories are shown in Table 2. The overall weighted prevalence of Ksx, rKOA, severe rKOA, and sxKOA, were 61%, 36%, 21%, and 27%, respectively, and were generally higher among females and participants with overweight/obesity. Overall, 62.1% of females and 58.9% of males reported knee symptoms. rKOA was present in 37.1% of females and 35.2% of males, severe rKOA in 22.7% and 19.9%, and sxKOA in 27.8% and 26.0%, respectively (Table 2).
Table 2.
Weighted* prevalence estimates (%) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals for knee outcomes by sex and BMI category in the JoCoHS cohort 2019–2024, N=902.
| Sex | BMI group | N | Knee symptoms | rKOA | Severe rKOA | sxKOA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| kg/m2 | ||||||
| Female | ||||||
| Overall (range 17–71) | 606 | 62.1 (57.4, 66.8) | 37.1 (32.4, 41.7) | 22.7 (18.7, 26.8) | 27.8 (23.6, 32.0) | |
| Normal (18.5–24.9) | 86 | 44.0 (31.8, 56.3) | 12.5 (5.3, 19.8) | 7.2 (1.1, 13.4) | 7.3 (2.4, 12.2) | |
| Overweight (25–29.9) | 141 | 53.3 (43.1, 63.6) | 21.9 (12.5, 31.2) | 11.8 (3.3, 20.3) | 11.8 (4.4, 19.3) | |
| Obesity (30–39.9) | 240 | 63.9 (56.6, 71.2) | 42.5 (35.0, 50.1) | 23.7 (17.2, 30.2) | 32.3 (25.1, 39.5) | |
| Severe obesity (40+) | 133 | 84.2 (77.4, 91.0) | 63.7 (53.9, 73.5) | 46.6 (37.0, 56.3) | 54.7 (44.8, 64.6) | |
| Male | ||||||
| Overall (range 19–69) | 296 | 58.9 (52.6, 65.1) | 35.2 (29.3, 41.1) | 19.9 (15.1, 24.6) | 26.0 (20.7, 31.3) | |
| Normal (18.5–24.9) | 35 | 58.7 (38.9, 78.5) | 23.7 (8.7, 38.6) | 14.3 (1.3, 27.4) | 20.1 (5.9, 34.4) | |
| Overweight (25–29.9) | 74 | 49.7 (37.0, 62.5) | 30.4 (19.1, 41.7) | 14.4 (6.4, 22.5) | 19.2 (10.1, 28.2) | |
| Obesity (30–39.9) | 142 | 63.8 (55.2, 72.4) | 35.1 (26.6, 43.6) | 20.0 (13.2, 26.8) | 27.1 (19.1, 35.2) | |
| Severe obesity (40+) | 45 | 58.6 (42.2, 74.9) | 52.1 (35.2, 69.0) | 32.5 (17.7, 47.4) | 37.7 (22.9, 52.6) |
JoCoHS: Johnston County Health Study; BMI: body mass index; rKOA: radiographic knee osteoarthritis; sxKOA: symptomatic radiographic knee osteoarthritis. The underweight stratum is excluded due to small cell size, although all were female and are included in the n=606 overall.
Weighted to the 2020 target population for Johnston County, NC
Across both sexes, numerically higher prevalence of Ksx, rKOA, severe rKOA, and sxKOA was observed with higher BMI categories (Table 2). Among females, the prevalence of sxKOA was similar among those who were normal (7.3%) or overweight (11.8%), but higher with non-overlapping CIs for both obesity (32.3% (95% CI 25.1–39.5)) and severe obesity (54.7% (95% CI 44.8–64.6%)) categories. A similar, but not statisitcally significant gradient was observed among males, with sxKOA prevalence rising from 20.1% (95% CI 5.9–34.4%) in the normal weighted group to 37.7 (95% CI 22.9–52.6%) in the severe obesity group. Among those with severe obesity, the prevalence of Ksx was higher (with non-overlapping CIs) among females than males. Among both sexes, rKOA, sxKOA, and severe rKOA were more prevalent among those with severe obesity compared to those with obesity (Table 2).
Among knees with rKOA compared to those without (in a supplemental knee-level analysis), osteophytes, meniscal extrusion, calcium crystals, and moderate to severe cartilage damage were much more prevalent (Supplemental Table A). Moderate to severe effusion/synovitis (grades 2–3) was observed in about 32% of rKOA knees versus 19% of non-rKOA knees. Large or medium medial tibiofemoral osteophytes (grade 2–3) were present in 43–51% of rKOA knees compared to 2–4% of non-rKOA knees (Supplemental Table A).
Weighted, person-level prevalence estimates of knee US features by sex in the JoCoHS cohort are shown in Table 3. Mild (grade 1) US features were seen in one-third to one-half of the population in at least one knee. Greyscale (GS) effusion and synovitis were numerically more prevalent among males compared with females across all grades, with non-overlapping CIs for moderate to severe GS effusion/synovitis and GS synovitis and presence of GS effusion. In contrast, US findings of medial and lateral cartilage damage were more prevalent in females than males, although some CIs overlap (Figure 1). Osteophyte prevalence was generally similar between sexes, with overlapping 95% confidence intervals across grades (Table 3).
Table 3.
Weighted* knee US prevalence estimates (%) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) by sex, of the of the JoCoHS cohort 2019–2024, N=861.
| US features (not mutually exclusive) | Female | Male |
|---|---|---|
| Weighted % (95% CI) | Weighted % (95% CI) | |
| GS effusion/synovitis 1: a small hypo/anechoic line beneath the capsule | 47.4 (42.5, 52.3) | 54.8 (48.5, 61.1) |
| GS effusion/synovitis 2: elevated joint capsule parallel to joint area | 25.3 (21.1, 29.6) | 40.5 (34.3, 46.7) |
| GS effusion/synovitis 3: convex distension of the joint capsule | 3.5 (1.8, 5.2) | 8.9 (5.5, 12.4) |
| GS synovitis 1: minimal distention of recess by hypo/anechoic material | 42.5 (37.7, 47.4) | 49.7 (43.4, 56.1) |
| GS synovitis 2: moderate distention with flat or concave limit | 26.9 (22.5, 31.3) | 40.7 (34.4, 46.9) |
| GS synovitis 3: severe or bulging distention of joint recess | 2.7 (1.4, 4.0) | 8.8 (5.4, 12.2) |
| GS effusion: abnormal hypo/anechoic intra-articular material | 41.9 (37.1, 46.7) | 64.0 (57.8, 70.1) |
| Suprapatellar PD for synovitis 1: trace to 10% intra-articular color signal | 31.1 (26.8, 35.4) | 37.7 (31.5, 43.9) |
| Suprapatellar PD for synovitis 2: 10–50% intra-articular color signal † | 5.7 (3.5, 7.9) | 7.1 (3.9, 10.2) |
| Osteophytes, medial tibiofemoral 1: small but distinct | 35.2 (30.6, 39.9) | 32.6 (26.7, 38.5) |
| Osteophytes, medial tibiofemoral 2: medium/larger | 18.3 (14.5, 22.1) | 16.6 (12.3, 21.0) |
| Osteophytes, medial tibiofemoral 3: large, bulky, prominent | 5.4 (3.8, 7.0) | 7.3 (4.2, 10.4) |
| Osteophytes, lateral tibiofemoral 1: small but distinct | 36.8 (32.0, 41.6) | 34.3 (28.4, 40.2) |
| Osteophytes, lateral tibiofemoral 2: medium/larger | 17.5 (14.0, 21.0) | 13.7 (9.5, 18.0) |
| Osteophytes, lateral tibiofemoral 3: large, bulky, prominent | 2.6 (1.3, 4.0) | 2.0 (0.6, 3.3) |
| Meniscal extrusion, medial tibiofemoral | 22.7 (18.6, 26.9) | 15.6 (11.2, 19.9) |
| Meniscal extrusion, lateral tibiofemoral | 31.3 (26.7, 35.8) | 25.8 (20.6, 31.1) |
| Cartilage damage, medial femur/trochlea 1: hyperechoic, loss of sharpness | 71.1 (66.6, 75.5) | 61.5 (55.4, 67.7) |
| Cartilage damage, medial femur/trochlea 2: localized thinning | 41.7 (36.9, 46.5) | 28.3 (22.6, 33.9) |
| Cartilage damage, medial femur/trochlea 3: complete cartilage loss | 7.1 (4.8, 9.4) | 3.1 (1.1, 5.1) |
| Cartilage damage, lateral femur/trochlea 1: hyperechoic, loss of sharpness | 68.0 (63.3, 72.7) | 59.2 (53.0, 65.5) |
| Cartilage damage, lateral femur/trochlea 2: localized thinning | 34.4 (29.8, 39.0) | 22.5 (17.5, 27.5) |
| Cartilage damage, lateral femur/trochlea 3: complete cartilage loss | 5.9 (4.0, 7.8) | 5.5 (2.6, 8.3) |
| Popliteal cyst 1: small/possible | 53.9 (48.9, 58.9) | 51.9 (45.4, 58.4) |
| Popliteal cyst 2: definite | 6.5 (4.4, 8.5) | 6.3 (3.6, 9.0) |
| Calcium crystal deposition, any view | 21.3 (17.1, 25.5) | 19.1 (14.5, 23.7) |
Weighted to the 2020 US Census data for Johnston County, NC as the target population
PD grade 3 (50% or more color signal) was absent in this cohort
JoCoHS: Johnston County Health Study; US: ultrasound; CI: confidence interval; SD: standard deviation; GS: greyscale; PD: power doppler
Figure 1.

Weighted* knee US prevalence estimates (%) and corresponding survey-weighted 95% confidence intervals (CI) of select US features by sex, of the of the JoCoHS cohort 2019–2024, N=861 (full details are in Table 3).
*Weighted to the 2020 target population for Johnston County, NC.
US: ultrasound; E/S: combined effusion/synovitis grade (blue, 1–3); Cart: medial cartilage damage grade (red, 1–3); ME: presence of medial meniscal extrusion or damage (orange, binary).
Table 4 shows weighted, person-level US prevalence estimates by BMI categories. GS effusion and Grade 1 PD decreased slightly with greater BMI, from 67.1 and 50.7%, respectively, in normal BMI participants to 43.3 and 26.6% in those with severe obesity (Table 4 and Figure 2). In contrast, the prevalence and severity of most other structural features was higher in higher BMI categories. Medial tibiofemoral osteophytes of grade 2 or 3, medial femoral cartilage thinning, and meniscal extrusion were more prevalent in higher categories of BMI (Table 4, Figure 2).
Table 4.
Weighted* knee US prevalence estimates (%) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) by BMI group, of the of the JoCoHS cohort 2019–2024, N=861.
| US features (not mutually exclusive) | BMI: normal | BMI: overweight | BMI: obesity | BMI: severe obesity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Weighted % (95% CI) | Weighted % (95% CI) | Weighted % (95% CI) | Weighted % (95% CI) | |
| GS effusion/synovitis 1: a small hypo/anechoic line beneath the capsule | 57.8 (46.8, 68.9) | 55.5 (47.6, 63.4) | 47.3 (41.2, 53.4) | 46.6 (37.3, 56.0) |
| GS effusion/synovitis 2: elevated joint capsule parallel to joint area | 30.3 (21.4, 39.2) | 38.5 (30.6, 46.3) | 32.7 (27.0, 38.3) | 25.5 (17.5, 33.5) |
| GS effusion/synovitis 3: convex distension of the joint capsule | 5.5 (1.2, 9.8) | 4.7 (1.3, 8.1) | 7.3 (4.1, 10.6) | 5.2 (1.8, 8.6) |
| GS synovitis 1: minimal distention of recess by hypo/anechoic material | 46.2 (34.8, 57.7) | 53.4 (45.5, 61.3) | 42.1 (36.0, 48.1) | 43.1 (33.7, 52.6) |
| GS synovitis 2: moderate distention with flat or concave limit | 33.1 (24.0, 42.2) | 37.5 (29.8, 45.3) | 35.0 (29.2, 40.8) | 24.1 (16.4, 31.9) |
| GS synovitis 3: severe or bulging distention of joint recess | 5.7 (1.3, 10.1) | 5.1 (1.6, 8.6) | 5.8 (3.0, 8.7) | 5.4 (2.0, 8.9) |
| GS effusion: abnormal hypo/anechoic intra-articular material | 67.1 (57.0, 77.2) | 56.2 (48.4, 64.0) | 49.2 (43.0, 55.4) | 43.3 (33.9, 52.6) |
| Suprapatellar PD for synovitis 1: trace to 10% intra-articular color signal | 50.7 (39.9, 61.4) | 31.8 (24.8, 38.8) | 33.6 (27.5, 39.7) | 26.6 (19.6, 33.6) |
| Suprapatellar PD for synovitis 2 † : 10–50% intra-articular color signal | 6.1 (0.9, 11.3) | 7.2 (3.1, 11.3) | 6.9 (3.8, 10.0) | 4.1 (1.5, 6.8) |
| Osteophytes, medial tibiofemoral 1: small but distinct | 19.7 (11.5, 28.0) | 31.2 (23.7, 38.6) | 39.3 (33.4, 45.2) | 36.8 (27.9, 45.7) |
| Osteophytes, medial tibiofemoral 2: medium/larger | 4.9 (0.6, 9.2) | 11.0 (5.9, 16.2) | 19.0 (14.3, 23.7) | 33.0 (24.3, 41.7) |
| Osteophytes, medial tibiofemoral 3: large, bulky, prominent | ne | 1.8 (0.3, 3.3) | 5.6 (2.9, 8.4) | 17.2 (11.4, 23.0) |
| Osteophytes, lateral tibiofemoral 1: small but distinct | 26.4 (17.4, 35.5) | 31.8 (24.4, 39.2) | 37.7 (31.8, 43.6) | 43.5 (34.4, 52.5) |
| Osteophytes, lateral tibiofemoral 2: medium/larger | 4.8 (1.4, 8.2) | 13.3 (7.8, 18.8) | 16.4 (12.2, 20.6) | 26.4 (18.3, 34.5) |
| Osteophytes, lateral tibiofemoral 3: large, bulky, prominent | ne | 2.1 (0.0, 4.4) | 1.5 (0.5, 2.5) | 4.7 (1.6, 7.8) |
| Meniscal extrusion, medial tibiofemoral | 15.3 (7.7, 22.9) | 14.6 (8.8, 20.4) | 20.3 (15.4, 25.1) | 27.8 (20.5, 35.0) |
| Meniscal extrusion, lateral tibiofemoral | 31.1 (21.0, 41.2) | 22.7 (16.2, 29.3) | 31.9 (26.5, 37.3) | 27.4 (19.8, 34.9) |
| Cartilage damage, medial femur/trochlea 1: hyperechoic, loss of sharpness | 69.5 (60.1, 78.8) | 66.5 (59.0, 73.9) | 64.7 (58.5, 70.8) | 68.9 (61.4, 76.3) |
| Cartilage damage, medial femur/trochlea 2: localized thinning | 24.1 (15.6, 32.6) | 37.4 (29.7, 45.1) | 34.2 (28.7, 39.7) | 45.4 (36.6, 54.3) |
| Cartilage damage, medial femur/trochlea 3: complete cartilage loss | 4.4 (0.4, 8.4) | 3.9 (1.3, 6.5) | 5.7 (3.1, 8.3) | 6.8 (3.5, 10.1) |
| Cartilage damage, lateral femur/trochlea 1: hyperechoic, loss of sharpness | 53.7 (42.4, 65.0) | 59.2 (51.3, 67.1) | 68.7 (62.9, 74.5) | 66.7 (58.0, 75.5) |
| Cartilage damage, lateral femur/trochlea 2: localized thinning | 31.1 (21.9, 40.3) | 28.5 (21.4, 35.7) | 27.6 (22.4, 32.8) | 30.7 (23.3, 38.0) |
| Cartilage damage, lateral femur/trochlea 3: complete cartilage loss | ne | 6.7 (2.9, 10.5) | 4.3 (2.3, 6.3) | 10.7 (5.2, 16.3) |
| Popliteal cyst 1: small/possible | 56.5 (45.6, 67.4) | 44.3 (36.5, 52.2) | 56.1 (50.0, 62.2) | 56.5 (47.0, 66.0) |
| Popliteal cyst 2: definite | 5.7 (1.8, 9.5) | 5.6 (2.5, 8.7) | 6.3 (3.7, 8.8) | 7.1 (3.0, 11.2) |
| Calcium crystal deposition, any view | 20.4 (12.9, 27.8) | 24.4 (17.6, 31.2) | 22.0 (17.1, 26.9) | 11.2 (6.1, 16.2) |
Weighted to the 2020 US Census data for Johnston County, NC as the target population. The underweight category is excluded due to small cell size.
JoCoHS: Johnston County Health Study; US: ultrasound; CI: confidence interval; SD: standard deviation; BMI: body mass index; GS: greyscale; PD: power doppler; ne=not estimable due to small cell size
PD grade 3 (50% or more color signal) was absent in this cohort
Figure 2.

Weighted* knee US prevalence estimates (%) and corresponding 95% survey-weighted confidence intervals (CI) of select US features that differed by BMI group, of the of the JoCoHS cohort 2019–2024, N=861 (full details are in Table 4).
*Weighted to the 2020 target population for Johnston County, NC.
US: ultrasound; BMI: body mass index; GS: greyscale; Osteophyte score (medial) from 1=small but distinct (light blue) to 2=medium/larger (medium blue) to 3=large/bulky/prominent (dark blue); GS effusion present=1 (orange,binary); Cartilage damage (medial) grade 2=localized thinning (red).
Discussion
We identified differences in the prevalence of US features of KOA, Ksx, rKOA, sxKOA, and severe rKOA particularly among females with severe obesity. Overall, there is a high prevalence of knee symptoms and radiographic OA in this community-based cohort and prevalence is higher with greater BMI, particularly among females. When compared to the baseline examination of JoCoOA, the prevalence of Ksx, rKOA, sxKOA, and severe rKOA has increased substantially across each category, although there are a few differences in inclusion criteria and definitions between the two cohorts.11 At JoCoOA baseline (1991–1997), the prevalence of Ksx, rKOA, sxKOA, and severe rKOA was 43%, 28%, 16% and 8% respectively,11 compared with 61%, 36%, 27%, and 21%, respectively, in the current study (JoCoHS, 2019–2024). To further enhance comparability, we also restricted JoCoHS data to those 45 years of age and excluded TKR, resulting in estimates of 62%, 42%, 31%, and 23%, respectively, further supporting this increase. Consistent with the baseline examination, prevalence in both populations was numerically greater in females.
These estimates are consistent with other literature that demonstrates a large and increasing burden of rKOA, likely secondary to an aging population and increasing obesity across populations.4, 5, 13, 14 The Framingham Osteoarthritis study (1987) reported an rKOA prevalence among adults aged ≥45 years to be 19.2%.15 In comparison, JoCoOA (1991–1997) reported a higher rKOA prevalence of 27.8% in the same age group.15 In the subsequent 2002–2005 Framingham cohort this prevalence rose to 27.7%,14 which parallels the increase in prevalence over time seen in the JoCoOA. This increase in prevalence across time parallel trends seen for sxKOA (knee pain on most days in the past month in radiographic KOA in the same knee) in the Framingham Study, where sxKOA approximately doubled in females and tripled in males over 20 years.14 Similarly, estimates from the Global Burden of Disease study reports that the overall prevalence of KOA which is defined as both symptoms and radiographic evidence is about 23% which is consistent with the recent Johnston County findings.13
Population-based prevalence estimates of US features are a unique contribution of this analysis. Our study revealed that males had higher prevalence of inflammatory features including effusion/synovitis, while females had a higher prevalence of structural cartilage changes. Jiang et al similarly found that males had higher prevalence of synovial hypertrophy and effusion.16 Other studies have found that females have lower cartilage thickness than males at baseline, and also lose articular cartilage at a greater rate.17 These findings might be partially explained by the fact that males normally have thicker synovium and more synovial fluid than females.17 Additionally, while synovial hypertrophy and effusion can be intermittent, cartilage damage is more likely to reflect persistent damage. Sex differences in OA have been attributed to a variety of etiologies including hormone-determined interactions, molecular based including IGF, anatomical differences, and biomechanical differences, and are likely multifactorial.18 Osteophytes by US were common in the population overall with a similar prevalence in males and females.
Prior prevalence studies of KOA have not distinguished between obesity and severe obesity, due to the relatively small proportion of the populations under study within the severe obesity category.19 Systematic reviews have demonstrated that higher BMI is associated with worsening knee OA symptoms, structural progression, and higher rates of total knee replacements.20, 21 These systematic reviews also suggest that obesity-related metabolic and inflammatory changes, in addition to increased mechanical load can be potential contributing factors to the pathogenesis and progression of KOA.20, 21 In this study, BMI related gradients were observed in both clinical and imaging outcomes. Weighted prevalence estimates demonstrated non-overlapping 95% CI (and thereby statistically significant differences) for Ksx, rKOA, sxKOA, and severe rKOA in females with obesity compared with females with severe obesity. This is consistent with a prior systematic review of 27 studies that revealed that a high BMI confers a greater relative risk for incident KOA in females than in males.22 This differentiation could lead to the development of more effective prevention and treatment strategies, as well as a better understanding of the distinct mechanisms driving KOA in individuals with severe obesity. Studies have demonstrated that osteophyte formation and cartilage thinning are associated with increasing BMI.23, 24 Notably, US structural features including osteophytes and cartilage thinning also followed this BMI gradient, while GS effusion and PD were exceptions to this rule. Of note, subcutaneous fat distribution, which could affect effusion detection, was not directly assessed and does not directly correlate with BMI.25 This distinction between features could also relate to attenuation from overlying soft tissue particularly affecting effusion and PD. These findings can reflect how mechanical and metabolic contributions of obesity could potentially contribute to OA pathogenesis and phenotype.26, 27 Additionally, structural osteoarthritis features may reflect the cumulative and metabolic effects of obesity. However, the observation that synovial inflammation might fluctuate independently of BMI is in contrast to prior work showing that knee effusion-synovitis progression was slowed by weight loss and that worsening effusion-synovitis mediated the association between BMI and KOA progression.28, 29 This study has several strengths including the use of a large, community-based cohort with sample weighting to allow for generalization to Johnston County, NC. Hence, these estimates from this cohort are likely generalizable to the southeastern United States. The combined use of radiographs with a standardized reliability-tested US scoring protocol allowed for comprehensive characterization of KOA, even in the absence of MRI. Significant differences were conservatively interpreted based on whether their confidence intervals did not overlap; inferential hypothesis testing was not performed, as the purpose of this work was to quantify prevalence rather than to test for differences. While this population is a large community-based cohort, the data are cross-sectional, limiting our ability to assess temporal or causal associations between risk factors and outcomes. The use of standardized static views, particularly for effusion detection, may have limited our ability to detect small effusions, which combined with variable attenuation, may have differential effects in obesity30.
These findings highlight the impact of obesity, particularly severe obesity, on the burden of KOA in community populations. Clinically, recognizing severe obesity as a modifiable risk factor is crucial in prevention of KOA. As a modifiable risk factor, weight management intervention including lifestyle modification and anti-obesity pharmacotherapy should be considered in patients with obesity for KOA prevention and management. Ongoing trials, such as the Osteoarthritis Prevention Study (TOPS), are evaluating whether long-term weight loss and exercise interventions can prevent the incidence of structural KOA in females with obesity, reflecting a developing focus on targeted sex-specific prevention strategies.31 Furthermore, US may have an expanding role in clinical care, offering ability to assess features and potentially phenotyping the disease. Future studies can further evaluate how US can integrate into clinical care to improve phenotyping and personalized management of KOA.
Conclusion
This study reveals a significant burden of Ksx, rKOA, sxKOA, and severe rKOA, particularly among females and individuals with higher BMI in a contemporary population. Males had a higher prevalence of inflammatory features by US including effusion/synovitis, while females had a higher prevalence of structural cartilage changes. However, effusion/synovitis was not associated with increasing BMI. The differentiation between obesity and severe obesity revealed meaningful gradients in both symptomatic and structural features, demonstrating an important potential role for point-of-care US in KOA assessment. Additional longitudinal population-based studies are needed to confirm our findings, assess relationships with long-term outcomes, and identify new treatment targets in this chronic condition.
Supplementary Material
Acknowledgments:
We would like to thank the staff and participants in the Johnston County Health Study without whom this work would not be possible.
Role of the funding source:
This study was funded in part by: NIH/NIAMS R01AR077060, K24AR081368, P30AR072580, and CDC U01DP006266. The funders had no role in the study design, collection, analysis, or interpretation of data, manuscript writing, or decision to submit for publication.
Competing interests:
Dr. Nelson has funding unrelated to this work from NIH/NIAMS, serves on the OARSI board, and is a consultant to Novo Nordisk.
Drs. Nelson and Golightly serve as Associate Editors of Osteoarthritis and Cartilage. Given their role as Associate Editors, Drs. Nelson and Golightly had no involvement in the peer-review of this article and has no access to information regarding its peer-review. Full responsibility for the editorial process for this article was delegated to another journal editor.
Generative AI and AI-assisted technologies were NOT used in the preparation of this work.
Footnotes
Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
References
- 1.Katz JN, Arant KR, Loeser RF. Diagnosis and Treatment of Hip and Knee Osteoarthritis: A Review. JAMA 2021; 325: 568–578. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Allen KD, Thoma LM, Golightly YM. Epidemiology of osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2022; 30: 184–195. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Yan H, Guo J, Zhou W, Dong C, Liu J. Health-related quality of life in osteoarthritis patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychol Health Med 2022; 27: 1859–1874. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Yang G, Wang J, Liu Y, Lu H, He L, Ma C, et al. Burden of Knee Osteoarthritis in 204 Countries and Territories, 1990–2019: Results From the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2023; 75: 2489–2500. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Deshpande BR, Katz JN, Solomon DH, Yelin EH, Hunter DJ, Messier SP, et al. Number of Persons With Symptomatic Knee Osteoarthritis in the US: Impact of Race and Ethnicity, Age, Sex, and Obesity. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2016; 68: 1743–1750. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Cross M, Smith E, Hoy D, Nolte S, Ackerman I, Fransen M, et al. The global burden of hip and knee osteoarthritis: estimates from the global burden of disease 2010 study. Ann Rheum Dis 2014; 73: 1323–1330. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Roemer FW, Guermazi A, Demehri S, Wirth W, Kijowski R. Imaging in Osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2022; 30: 913–934. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Nevalainen MT, Uusimaa AP, Saarakkala S. The ultrasound assessment of osteoarthritis: the current status. Skeletal Radiol 2023; 52: 2271–2282. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Yerich NV, Alvarez C, Schwartz TA, Savage-Guin S, Renner JB, Bakewell CJ, et al. A Standardized, Pragmatic Approach to Knee Ultrasound for Clinical Research in Osteoarthritis: The Johnston County Osteoarthritis Project. ACR Open Rheumatol 2020; 2: 438–448. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Yates KA, Alvarez C, Schwartz TA, Savage-Guin S, Renner JB, Bakewell CJ, et al. Associations and Diagnostic Accuracy of Ultrasound Features in Knee Osteoarthritis: Cross-Sectional Results From a Large Community-Based Cohort. Arthritis Rheumatol 2025; 77: 996–1005. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Jordan JM, Helmick CG, Renner JB, Luta G, Dragomir AD, Woodard J, et al. Prevalence of knee symptoms and radiographic and symptomatic knee osteoarthritis in african americans and caucasians: The Johnston County Osteoarthritis Project. Journal of Rheumatology. Journal of Rheumatology 2007; 34: 172. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Jordan JM, Linder GF, Renner JB, Fryer JG. The impact of arthritis in rural populations. Arthritis Care Res 1995; 8: 242–250. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Xie X, Zhang K, Li Y, Li Y, Li X, Lin Y, et al. Global, regional, and national burden of osteoarthritis from 1990 to 2021 and projections to 2035: A cross-sectional study for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021. PLoS One 2025; 20: e0324296. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Nguyen US, Zhang Y, Zhu Y, Niu J, Zhang B, Felson DT. Increasing prevalence of knee pain and symptomatic knee osteoarthritis: survey and cohort data. Ann Intern Med 2011; 155: 725–732. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Lawrence RC, Felson DT, Helmick CG, Arnold LM, Choi H, Deyo RA, et al. Estimates of the prevalence of arthritis and other rheumatic conditions in the United States. Part II. Arthritis Rheum 2008; 58: 26–35. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Jiang T, Yang T, Zhang W, Doherty M, Zhang Y, Wei J, et al. Prevalence of ultrasound-detected knee synovial abnormalities in a middle-aged and older general population-the Xiangya Osteoarthritis Study. Arthritis Res Ther 2021; 23: 156. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Tschon M, Contartese D, Pagani S, Borsari V, Fini M. Gender and Sex Are Key Determinants in Osteoarthritis Not Only Confounding Variables. A Systematic Review of Clinical Data. J Clin Med 2021; 10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Peshkova M, Lychagin A, Lipina M, Di Matteo B, Anzillotti G, Ronzoni F, et al. Gender-Related Aspects in Osteoarthritis Development and Progression: A Review. Int J Mol Sci 2022; 23. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Nelson AE, Hu D, Arbeeva L, Alvarez C, Cleveland RJ, Schwartz TA, et al. The Prevalence of Knee Symptoms, Radiographic, and Symptomatic Osteoarthritis at Four Time Points: The Johnston County Osteoarthritis Project, 1999–2018. ACR Open Rheumatol 2021; 3: 558–565. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Batushansky A, Zhu S, Komaravolu RK, South S, Mehta-D’souza P, Griffin TM. Fundamentals of OA. An initiative of Osteoarthritis and Cartilage. Obesity and metabolic factors in OA. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2022; 30: 501–515. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Solanki P, Hussain SM, Abidi J, Cheng J, Fairley JL, Page MJ, et al. Association between weight gain and knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2023; 31: 300–316. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Szilagyi IA, Waarsing JH, van Meurs JBJ, Bierma-Zeinstra SMA, Schiphof D. A systematic review of the sex differences in risk factors for knee osteoarthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2023; 62: 2037–2047. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Deveza LA, Melo L, Yamato TP, Mills K, Ravi V, Hunter DJ. Knee osteoarthritis phenotypes and their relevance for outcomes: a systematic review. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2017; 25: 1926–1941. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Mezhov V, Ciccutini FM, Hanna FS, Brennan SL, Wang YY, Urquhart DM, et al. Does obesity affect knee cartilage? A systematic review of magnetic resonance imaging data. Obes Rev 2014; 15: 143–157. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Joseph GB, McCulloch CE, Liu F, Lynch JA, Majumdar S, Lane NE, et al. Increase in knee-adjacent subcutaneous fat is associated with cartilage degeneration independent of BMI: A four-year analysis of the OAI dataset. Osteoarthr Cartil Open 2026; 8: 100768. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Fuggle NR, Chapurlat R, Laslop A, Al-Daghri N, Alokail M, Thiyagarajan JA, et al. Novel approaches to the stratified management of knee osteoarthritis. Nat Rev Rheumatol 2025; 21: 684–695. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Henriques J, Berenbaum F, Mobasheri A. Obesity-induced fibrosis in osteoarthritis: Pathogenesis, consequences and novel therapeutic opportunities. Osteoarthr Cartil Open 2024; 6: 100511. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Banuls-Mirete M, Lombardi AF, Posis AIB, Shadyab AH, Chang EY, Lane NE, et al. Effusionsynovitis worsening mediates the association between body mass index and Kellgren-Lawrence progression in obese individuals: data from the Osteoarthritis Initiative. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2022; 30: 1278–1286. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Loffler MT, Ngarmsrikam C, Giesler P, Joseph GB, Akkaya Z, Lynch JA, et al. Effect of weight loss on knee joint synovitis over 48 months and mediation by subcutaneous fat around the knee: data from the Osteoarthritis Initiative. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2024; 25: 300. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Li TY. Sonography of Knee Effusion. Journal of Diagnostic Medical Sonography 2020; 36: 545–558. [Google Scholar]
- 31.Messier SP, Callahan LF, Losina E, Mihalko SL, Guermazi A, Ip E, et al. The osteoarthritis prevention study (TOPS) - A randomized controlled trial of diet and exercise to prevent Knee Osteoarthritis: Design and rationale. Osteoarthr Cartil Open 2024; 6: 100418. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
