MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4206325685 · doi:10.1186/s12891-021-04910-5

Bone marrow aspirate concentrate versus platelet-rich plasma for treating knee osteoarthritis: a one-year non-randomized retrospective comparative study

2022· article· en· W4206325685 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Abed El-Hakim El-Kadiry, Carlos Lumbao, Natasha Salame, Moutih Rafei, Riam Shammaa

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Musculoskeletal Disorders · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPeriodontal Regeneration and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoMcGill UniversityCanadian Armed ForcesUniversité de MontréalMontreal Heart Institute
FundersUniversité de Montréal
KeywordsMedicineWOMACOsteoarthritisVisual analogue scalePlatelet-rich plasmaQuality of life (healthcare)RheumatologyPhysical therapyRetrospective cohort studyAdverse effectSports medicineRandomized controlled trialOrthopedic surgeryInternal medicineSurgeryPlateletPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is a debilitating condition affecting human body biomechanics and quality of life. Current standard care for knee OA leads to trivial improvement and entails multiple adverse effects or complications. Recently, investigational cell therapies injected intra-articularly, such as bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMAC) and platelet-rich plasma (PRP), have shown safety and therapeutic potency providing patients with pain relief. In the current retrospective comparative study, we investigated the differences in pain and functional improvements in patients with symptomatic knee OA receiving intra-articular injections of BMAC vs PRP. METHODS: Pain and functionality scores were measured at baseline and at different time points post-injection over 12 months, using 3 self-administered, clinically validated questionnaires: the visual analogue scale (VAS) for assessing pain intensity, the knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score (KOOS) for evaluating functionality and knee-related quality of life, and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) for evaluating physical function. The repeated-measures general linear model with Sidak test for pairwise comparisons was used to investigate the influence of the treatment on the score evolution within groups (between baseline and each time point) and between groups (overall). RESULTS: The BMAC group (n = 26 knees) significantly improved in VAS, KOOS, and WOMAC scores between baseline and 12 months (57.4, 75.88, and 73.95% mean score improvement, respectively). In contrast, the PRP group (n = 13 knees) witnessed nonsignificant improvement in all scores. BMAC, in comparison to PRP, induced significant improvement in outcomes by 29.38% on the VAS scale, 53.89% on the KOOS scale, and 51.71% on the WOMAC scale (P < .002, P < .01, P < .011, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Intra-articular autologous BMAC injections are safe, effective in treating pain, and ameliorate functionality in patients with symptomatic knee OA to a greater extent than PRP injections. Intra-articular autologous BMAC therapy is safe and provides more relief to patients with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis compared to PRP therapy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.160
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designRandomized trial
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

Citations41
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Musculoskeletal DisordersSame topicPeriodontal Regeneration and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207