MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389205104 · doi:10.1186/s12891-023-06925-6

Efficacy and safety of corticosteroids, hyaluronic acid, and PRP and combination therapy for knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

2023· review· en· W4389205104 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Xiaochen Qiao, Lei Yan, Yi Feng, Xiaoyan Li, Kun Zhang, Zhi Lv, Chaojian Xu, Sen Zhao, Fengrui Liu, Xihua Yang, Zhi Tian

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Musculoskeletal Disorders · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPeriodontal Regeneration and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersShanxi Medical UniversityNatural Science Foundation of Shanxi Province
KeywordsMedicinePlaceboMeta-analysisWOMACCochrane LibraryOsteoarthritisAdverse effectInternal medicinePlatelet-rich plasmaRandomized controlled trialPhysical therapyVisual analogue scaleAlternative medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: There are many injectable treatments for knee osteoarthritis with different characteristics and effects, the aim is to understand which one can lead to better and safer results. METHODS: The PRISMA principles were followed when doing the literature search. Web of Science databases, Embase, the Cochrane Library, PubMed, and the Wanfang database were searched to identified randomized controlled trials that assessed the efficacy of corticosteroids (CSC), platelet-rich plasma (PRP), hyaluronic acid (HA), and combination therapy in treating KOA. Risk of bias was assessed using the relevant Cochrane tools (version 1.0). The outcome measure included the visual analog scale (VAS) score, the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) score, and treatment-related adverse events. The network meta-analysis was performed using STATA17 software and a Bayesian stratified random effects model. RESULTS: Network meta-analysis using the Bayesian random-effects model revealed 35 studies with 3104 participants. PRP showed the best WOMAC score at a 3-month follow-up, followed by PRP + HA, HA, placebo, and CSC; PRP + HA scored the highest VAS, followed by PRP, CSC, HA, and placebo. PRP, CSC, HA, and placebo had the highest WOMAC scores six months following treatment; PRP + HA showed the best VAS scores. PRP showed the best WOMAC score at 12 months, followed by PRP + HA, HA, placebo, and CSC; The best VAS score was obtained with PRP, followed by PRP + HA, HA, and CSC. No therapy demonstrated a rise in adverse events linked to the treatment in terms of safety. CONCLUSIONS: The current study found that PRP and PRP + HA were the most successful in improving function and alleviating pain after 3, 6, and 12 months of follow-up. CSC, HA, PRP, and combination therapy did not result in an increase in the incidence of treatment-related side events as compared to placebo.

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)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.050
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: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.117

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.050
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0200.041
Bibliometrics0.0110.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.290 · 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

Citations70
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Musculoskeletal DisordersSame topicPeriodontal Regeneration and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207