Three Doses of Platelet‐Rich Plasma Therapy Are More Effective Than One Dose of Platelet‐Rich Plasma in the Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy of a single dose of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) with multiple doses of PRP therapy in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis (KOA). METHODS: The PubMed, Embase, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases were searched from database inception to May 2022; in addition, the gray literature and bibliographic references were searched. Only randomized controlled trials comparing the effect of a single dose versus multiple doses of PRP for KOA were included. Literature retrieval and data extraction were conducted by 3 independent reviewers. The inclusion and exclusion criteria were based on type of study, research subjects, intervention, outcome, language, and availability of data. Pooled analyses of visual analog scale (VAS) scores, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index scores, and adverse events were conducted. RESULTS: Seven studies (all randomized controlled trials) of high methodologic quality involving 575 patients were included. The ages of the patients included in this study ranged from 20 to 80 years, and the sex ratio was balanced. Triple-dose PRP therapy resulted in significantly better VAS scores compared with single-dose PRP therapy at 12 months (P < .0001), with no significant change in VAS scores between double-dose PRP and single-dose PRP at 12 months. Regarding adverse events, double-dose (P = .28) and triple-dose (P = .24) therapy showed no significant differences in safety from single-dose therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Although there is a paucity of large high-quality Level I studies, current best evidence suggests that 3 doses of PRP for KOA are more effective than 1 dose of PRP at providing pain relief up to 1 year after administration. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, systematic review of Level II studies.
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 | 0.013 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.024 | 0.036 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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".