Efficacy of Platelet‐Rich Plasma in the Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis: A Meta‐analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To use meta-analysis techniques to evaluate the efficacy and safety of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections for the treatment knee of osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: We performed a systematic literature search in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane database through April 2016 to identify Level I randomized controlled trials that evaluated the clinical efficacy of PRP versus control treatments for knee OA. The primary outcomes were Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain and function scores. The primary outcomes were compared with their minimum clinically important differences (MCID)-defined as the smallest difference perceived as important by the average patient. RESULTS: We included 10 randomized controlled trials with a total of 1069 patients. Our analysis showed that at 6 months postinjection, PRP and hyaluronic acid (HA) had similar effects with respect to pain relief (WOMAC pain score) and functional improvement (WOMAC function score, WOMAC total score, International Knee Documentation Committee score, Lequesne score). At 12 months postinjection, however, PRP was associated with significantly better pain relief (WOMAC pain score, mean difference -2.83, 95% confidence interval [CI] -4.26 to -1.39, P = .0001) and functional improvement (WOMAC function score, mean difference -12.53, 95% CI -14.58 to -10.47, P < .00001; WOMAC total score, International Knee Documentation Committee score, Lequesne score, standardized mean difference 1.05, 95% CI 0.21-1.89, P = .01) than HA, and the effect sizes of WOMAC pain and function scores at 12 months exceeded the MCID (-0.79 for WOMAC pain and -2.85 for WOMAC function score). Compared with saline, PRP was more effective for pain relief (WOMAC pain score) and functional improvement (WOMAC function score) at 6 months and 12 months postinjection, and the effect sizes of WOMAC pain and function scores at 6 months and 12 months exceeded the MCID. We also found that PRP did not increase the risk of adverse events compared with HA and saline. CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence indicates that, compared with HA and saline, intra-articular PRP injection may have more benefit in pain relief and functional improvement in patients with symptomatic knee OA at 1 year postinjection. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I, meta-analysis 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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Meta-analysis | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Meta-analysis | high |
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 | 0.035 | 0.061 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.031 | 0.060 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".