MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3216341553 · doi:10.2106/jbjs.20.02258

The Effect of Leukocyte Concentration on Platelet-Rich Plasma Injections for Knee Osteoarthritis

2021· article· en· W3216341553 on OpenAlexaffabout
Aazad Abbas, Jin Du, Herman S. Dhotar

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Bone and Joint Surgery · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPeriodontal Regeneration and Treatments
Canadian institutionsNorth York General HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOsteoarthritisCochrane LibraryWOMACRandomized controlled trialMeta-analysisInternal medicinePhysical therapyVisual analogue scaleOdds ratioPlaceboAdverse effectMEDLINEPathologyAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: It is hypothesized that leukocyte-poor (LP) platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is preferred over leukocyte-rich (LR) PRP for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: The MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases were reviewed for all English-language studies comparing LP-PRP or LR-PRP with relevant controls or each other. The follow-up periods were 6 months and 12 months. The primary outcome measure was the change in the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score between baseline and follow-up. The secondary outcome measures were changes in the WOMAC pain subscale, visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective score between baseline and follow-up, and the incidence of local adverse reactions. Treatment outcomes were analyzed using the mean difference between treatments for continuous outcomes and the odds ratio for binary outcomes, with 95% credibility intervals. Treatment modalities were ranked using the surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) probabilities. Risk of bias was assessed using the relevant Cochrane tools, RoB 2 (version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tools) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and ROBINS-I (Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies - of Interventions) for prospective comparative studies (PCSs). RESULTS: This network meta-analysis included 23 studies: 20 RCTs and 3 PCSs, with a total of 2,260 patients and a mean follow-up period of 9.9 months. The overall risk-of-bias assessment of the RCTs revealed that 9 studies had low risk, 7 had some concerns, and 4 had high risk. The overall risk-of-bias assessment of the PCSs revealed that 1 study had low risk and 2 had moderate risk. We found no significant (p < 0.05) difference in all outcome measures and local adverse reactions between LP-PRP and LR-PRP. SUCRA rankings revealed that, for all outcome measures, LP-PRP is preferred to LR-PRP across follow-up periods. CONCLUSIONS: Leukocyte concentration of PRP does not play a significant role in patient-reported outcome measures for knee OA. LP-PRP is preferred to LR-PRP according to SUCRA rankings, but this preference may not be important in clinical practice. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.070

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.008
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations51
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Bone and Joint SurgerySame topicPeriodontal Regeneration and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207