MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4382797177 · doi:10.7759/cureus.41240

The Efficacy and Safety of Intra-articular Low Molecular Weight Fraction of Human Serum Albumin for the Management of Moderate to Moderately Severe Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2023· review· en· W4382797177 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mohammad Nooh, Mohammed S. Alshehri, Ziyad Alzahrani, Hatem Alsolami, Amal O Almutairi, Abdulaziz Alotaibi, Abdulaziz N Ajohani

Bibliographic record

VenueCureus · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineWOMACMeta-analysisOsteoarthritisPlaceboCochrane LibraryInternal medicineAdverse effectRelative riskStrictly standardized mean differenceConfidence intervalRandomized controlled trialJoint painPhysical therapySurgeryPathologyAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Osteoarthritis is a chronic degenerative joint disease that affects weight-bearing joints. Low molecular weight fraction of 5% (LMWF-5A) human serum albumin is an intra-articular injection that emerged for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis. The aim of this review is to assess the efficacy and safety of LMWF-5A versus placebo through a systematic review and meta-analysis. The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), EBSCO, and ClinicalTrials.gov registry databases were utilized to search for studies. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the efficacy of LMWF-5A versus placebo were included. Efficacy endpoints were represented by Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) A and C scores for pain and function, respectively. Serious adverse events (SAEs), non-serious adverse events (NSAEs), and mortality rates were used to evaluate the safety of the drug. The revised Cochrane risk of bias tool was used for the risk of bias assessment. Seven RCTs (n=2939) that met the inclusion criteria were included. The meta-analysis did not find significant improvement in pain (WOMAC A) (standardized mean difference (SMD)= -0.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.10 - 0.09, P=0.87, I²=30%). Additionally, no significant change in function was noted (WOMAC C) (SMD=0.01, 95% CI -0.08 - 0.10, P=0.87, I²=22%). The pooled analysis did not find a significant difference between LMWF-5A and placebo regarding the incidence of joint swelling (P=0.84), joint stiffness (P=0.53), arthralgia (P=0.53), extremity pain (P=0.45), NSAEs (P=0.21), SAEs (P=0.92), or mortality (P=1.00). However, the subgroup analysis showed a significant reduction of 42% in NSAEs upon administration of 10 mL of LMWF-5A (risk ratio (RR)=0.58, 95% CI 0.35-0.97, P=0.04). In summary, our meta-analysis did not find significant differences between LMWF-5A and placebo regarding the incidence of NSAEs, SAEs, or mortality. On the other hand, LMWF-5A did not demonstrate superiority over saline in terms of efficacy. Therefore, it is not an effective drug for managing knee osteoarthritis.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0180.027
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCureusSame topicOsteoarthritis Treatment and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207