Platelet-Rich Plasma in the Management of Articular Cartilage Pathology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Using systematic review methodology, we endeavored to answer the following questions concerning the treatment of osteochondral pathology: (1) what pathologies have been treated in vivo with the use of platelet-rich plasma (PRP); (2) what methods of PRP preparation and delivery have been reported; (3) what assessment tools and comparison group have been used to assess its effectiveness; and (4) what are the clinical outcomes of its use. DATA SOURCES: A systematic literature search was performed of the OVID, EMBASE, and Evidence Based Medicine Reviews databases to identify all studies published up to October 2012 that assessed clinical outcomes of the use of PRP for the treatment of chondral and osteochondral pathology, excluding those including concomitant management of acute fractures or ligament reconstruction. DATA EXTRACTION: The included studies were reviewed and the following data were extracted and tabulated: study authors' year and journal, study design and level of evidence, pathology treated, methods of PRP preparation and delivery, and clinical outcome scores. DATA SYNTHESIS: Ten studies were included in the final analysis. The majority of studies assessed the use of PRP in the treatment of degenerative osteoarthritis of the knee or hip (representing 570 of a total of 662 joints). The majority of patients were treated with intra-articular injections, whereas 2 studies used PRP as an adjunct to surgical treatment. Significant improvements in joint-specific clinical scores (7 of 8 studies), general health scores (4 of 4 studies), and pain scores (4 of 6 studies) compared with baseline were reported up to 6-month follow-up, but few studies provided longer-term data. No studies reported worse scores compared with baseline at final follow-up. Three of 4 comparative studies reported significantly better clinical and/or pain scores when compared with hyaluronic acid injections at similar follow-up times. CONCLUSIONS: Currently, there is a paucity of data supporting the use of PRP for the management of focal traumatic osteochondral defects. There is limited evidence suggesting short-term clinical benefits with the use of PRP for symptomatic osteoarthritis of the knee, but the studies published to date are of poor quality and at high risk for bias. Further high-quality comparative studies with longer follow-up are needed to ascertain whether PRP is beneficial, either alone or as an adjunct to surgical procedures, in the management of articular cartilage pathology.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.031 | 0.095 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".