Intraosseous Injections Are Safe And Effective in Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate clinical outcomes after intraosseous injection for knee osteoarthritis systematically with available clinical evidence. METHODS: A systematic search methodology of the PUBMED, EMBASE, and CINAHL databases was conducted in November 2020. The search workflow was in adherence to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). The following inclusion criteria were adopted: clinical trials of any level of evidence, reporting clinical outcomes following intraosseous injections of bone substitutes or biologic agents, and mesenchymal stem cells or platelet-rich plasma into the knee as treatment modalities for osteoarthritis. Duplicate data and articles not written in English were excluded from this review. RESULTS: Six studies were identified and included in this review, with a total of 167 patients. Two studies used subchondroplasty CaP injections, while 4 studies used intraosseous injections of platelet-rich plasma. Two studies provided Level II evidence, 2 studies provided Level III evidence, and a further 2 provided Level IV evidence. Five out of 6 studies reported data using the visual analog scale, 4 studies used the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, while 3 studies used the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index. Clinical improvements in pain and functionality were documented in all trials, with only a few patients experiencing adverse events. CONCLUSION: Intraosseous injections for knee osteoarthritis are safe and effective. However, multiple pertinent variables such as safety, cost of treatment, and performance against placebos and other treatment modalities require further evaluation before intraosseous injections can be considered as standard treatment for patients presenting with osteoarthritis of the knee.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".