MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220878359 · doi:10.1177/03635465211072554

Bone Marrow Aspirate Concentrate Is Equivalent to Platelet-Rich Plasma for the Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis at 2 Years: A Prospective Randomized Trial

2022· article· en· W4220878359 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Adam W. Anz, Hillary A. Plummer, Achraf Cohen, Peter A. Everts, James R. Andrews, Joshua G. Hackel

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Sports Medicine · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPeriodontal Regeneration and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOsteoarthritisWOMACPlatelet-rich plasmaRandomized controlled trialPhysical therapyBone marrowInternal medicineRheumatologySurgeryPlateletPathologyAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Autologous platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMC) are being used clinically as therapeutic agents for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of BMC and PRP on pain and function in patients with knee osteoarthritis up to 24 months after injection. It was hypothesized that patients receiving BMC would have better sustained outcomes than those receiving PRP. Study Design: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: A total of 90 participants aged between 18 and 80 years with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis (Kellgren-Lawrence grades 1-3) were randomized into 2 study groups: PRP and BMC. Both groups completed the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and subjective International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) questionnaire before and 1, 3, 6, 9, 12, 18, and 24 months after a single intra-articular injection of leukocyte-rich PRP or BMC. A linear mixed-effects model was performed to quantify the effects over time and the difference between the groups. This model has the random effect for time to assess the extent in which the change over time differs from one person to another. Results: An overall 84 patients completed questionnaires from baseline to 12 months; however, 17 patients (n = 9; PRP group) were lost to follow-up at 18 months and 25 (n = 13; PRP group) at 24 months. There were no statistically significant differences in IKDC ( P = .909; 95% CI, −6.26 to 7.03) or WOMAC ( P = .789; 95% CI, −6.26 to 4.77) scores over time between the groups. Both groups had significantly improved IKDC ( P < .001; 95% CI, 0.275-0.596) and WOMAC ( P = .001; 95% CI, −0.41 to −0.13) scores from baseline to 24 months after the injection. These improvements plateaued at 3 months and were sustained for 24 months after the injection, with no difference between PRP and BMC at any time point. Conclusions: For the treatment of osteoarthritis, PRP and BMC performed similarly out to 24 months. BMC was not superior to PRP. Registration: NCT03289416 (ClincalTrials.gov identifier).

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 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

Citations46
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Journal of Sports MedicineSame topicPeriodontal Regeneration and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207