MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1873023416 · doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2015.08.005

Efficacy of Intra‐articular Platelet‐Rich Plasma Injections in Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review

2015· review· en· W1873023416 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Carlos J. Meheux, Patrick C. McCulloch, David M. Lintner, Kevin E. Varner, Joshua D. Harris

Bibliographic record

VenueArthroscopy The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPeriodontal Regeneration and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsViscosupplementationMedicinePlatelet-rich plasmaOsteoarthritisWOMACPlaceboPhysical therapyInternal medicineHyaluronic acidCochrane LibraryMeta-analysisSurgeryIntra articularPlateletPathologyAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To determine (1) whether platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injection significantly improves validated patient-reported outcomes in patients with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis (OA) at 6 and 12 months postinjection, (2) differences in outcomes between PRP and corticosteroid injections or viscosupplementation or placebo injections at 6 and 12 months postinjection, and (3) similarities and differences in outcomes based on the PRP formulations used in the analyzed studies. METHODS: PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, SCOPUS, and Sport Discus were searched for English-language, level I evidence, human in vivo studies on the treatment of symptomatic knee OA with intra-articular PRP compared with other options, with a minimum of 6 months of follow-up. A quality assessment of all articles was performed using the Modified Coleman Methodology Score (average, 83.3/100), and outcomes were analyzed using 2-proportion z-tests. RESULTS: Six articles (739 patients, 817 knees, 39% males, mean age of 59.9 years, with 38 weeks average follow-up) were analyzed. All studies met minimal clinical important difference criteria and showed significant improvements in statistical and clinical outcomes, including pain, physical function, and stiffness, with PRP. All but one study showed significant differences in clinical outcomes between PRP and hyaluronic acid (HA) or PRP and placebo in pain and function. Average pretreatment Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) scores were 52.36 and 52.05 for the PRP and HA groups, respectively (P = .420). Mean post-treatment WOMAC scores for PRP were significantly better than for HA at 3 to 6 months (28.5 and 43.4, respectively; P = .0008) and at 6 to 12 months (22.8 and 38.1, respectively; P = .0062). None of the included studies used corticosteroids. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with symptomatic knee OA, PRP injection results in significant clinical improvements up to 12 months postinjection. Clinical outcomes and WOMAC scores are significantly better after PRP versus HA at 3 to 12 months postinjection. There is limited evidence for comparing leukocyte-rich versus leukocyte-poor PRP or PRP versus steroids in this study. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I, systematic review of Level I studies.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.007
Bibliometrics0.0060.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.287 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations445
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArthroscopy The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related SurgerySame topicPeriodontal Regeneration and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207