A model-based quantitative analysis of efficacy and associated factors of platelet rich plasma treatment for osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: While platelet rich plasma (PRP) has been extensively studied in treating osteoarthritis (OA), there has been an ongoing debate regarding the efficacy of PRP and the optimal subpopulation for PRP treatment remains unknown. The authors hereby aim to establish a pharmacodynamic model-based meta-analysis to quantitatively evaluate PRP efficacy, comparing with hyaluronic acid (HA) and identify relevant factors that significantly affect the efficacy of PRP treatment for OA. METHODS: The authors searched for PubMed and the Cochrane Library Central Register of Controlled Trials of PRP randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for the treatment of symptomatic or radiographic OA from the inception dates to 15 July 2022. Participants' clinical and demographic characteristics and efficacy data, defined as Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index and visual analog scale pain scores at each time point were extracted. RESULTS: A total of 45 RCTs (3829 participants) involving 1805 participants injected with PRP were included in the analysis. PRP reached a peak efficacy at ~ 2-3 months after injection in patients with OA. Both conventional meta-analysis and pharmacodynamic maximal effect models showed that PRP was significantly more effective than HA for joint pain and function impairment (additional decrease of 1.1, 0.5, 4.3, and 1.1 scores compared to HA treatment at 12 months for Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index pain, stiffness, function, and visual analog scale pain scores, respectively). Higher baseline symptom scores, older age (≥60 years), higher BMI (≥30), lower Kellgren-Lawrence grade (≤2) and shorter OA duration (<6 months) were significantly associated with greater efficacy of PRP treatment. CONCLUSION: These findings sugges t that PRP is a more effective treatment for OA than the more well-known HA treatment. The authors also determined the time when the PRP injection reaches peak efficacy and optimized the targeting subpopulation of OA. Further high-quality RCTs are required to confirm the optimal population of PRP in the treatment of OA.
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 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 | 0.075 | 0.099 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.052 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".