MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4362458317 · doi:10.1097/js9.0000000000000337

A model-based quantitative analysis of efficacy and associated factors of platelet rich plasma treatment for osteoarthritis

2023· review· en· W4362458317 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ying Cao, Jieren Luo, Shun Han, Zewei Li, Tianxiang Fan, Muhui Zeng, Xin Wen, Yongzheng Peng, Li Jiang, Weiyu Han, Lijun Lin, Siu Ngor Fu, David J. Hunter, Changhai Ding, Lujin Li, Zhaohua Zhu

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Surgery · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPeriodontal Regeneration and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBasic and Applied Basic Research Foundation of Guangdong ProvinceWu Jieping Medical FoundationNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsMedicineOsteoarthritisPlatelet-rich plasmaVisual analogue scalePharmacodynamicsMeta-analysisRandomized controlled trialInternal medicineCochrane LibraryPhysical therapyPlateletAlternative medicinePharmacokineticsPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.799
Threshold uncertainty score0.651

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.229
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.193 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations17
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of SurgerySame topicPeriodontal Regeneration and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207