Platelet-rich Plasma Superiority over Hyaluronic Acid as a Conservative Treatment for Early Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM:This study aimed to perform a systematic review (SR) of SR to elucidate prior findings regarding favorable outcomes between platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and hyaluronic acid (HA) injections for early knee osteoarthritis (KOA). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a thorough literature search adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for SR and Meta-analyses only for SRs from PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar from 2020 to 2023. The inclusion and exclusion criteria were determined using the population, intervention, comparison, outcome, and study design model. A measurement tool to assess SR-2 was used to grade the included SRs. Two researchers independently searched, extracted, and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies. Cohen’s kappa coefficient was used to calculate the inter-observer disparities in study eligibility and risk of bias. The corrected covered area (CCA) metric addressed the overlap issue with the original studies. RESULTS: One SR yielded high methodological quality whereas three SRs yielded moderate methodological quality. The overall CCA among the four SRs was 30.77%, and all SRs used the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index score as a patient-reported outcome (PRO) and revealed that the PRP group improved more than the HA group. One SR used the Tegner score as a PRO and found no distinction between the PRP and HA groups. The incidence of substantial pain was lower in the PRP group than in the HA group. One SR reported considerably lower local pain post-injection in the HA groups. Overall, three SRs showed that PRP yielded better outcomes than the HA, and one showed that PRP showed advantages over HA injections for knee pain at 6 and 12 months; however, the clinical outcomes were not different. CONCLUSION: Our findings supported the superiority of PRP over HA as a long-term alternative therapy for early-stage KOA.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".