MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402952246 · doi:10.62347/jujv3321

Clinical efficacy of mesenchymal stem cells and platelet-rich plasma in the therapy of osteoarthritis: a meta-analysis

2024· review· en· W4402952246 on OpenAlex
Aikebaier Aixirefu

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Translational Research · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPeriodontal Regeneration and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMesenchymal stem cellPlatelet-rich plasmaOsteoarthritisMedicineClinical efficacyMeta-analysisPlateletInternal medicinePathologyAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Intra-articular administration of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) presents a novel methodology for managing osteoarthritis, but there is still no definite evidence of its efficacy.Aim: To assess the comparative effectiveness of MSCs and platelet-rich plasma (PRP) for managing osteoarthritis by reviewing the literature and using meta-analysis.Methods: Randomized controlled trials and cohort studies comparing MSCs and PRP for managing osteoarthritis were included.We searched 'osteoarthritis', 'mesenchymal stem cell', 'platelet-rich plasma', and other words in Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane Library database.The search period encompassed the entire duration of the databases, starting from its inception until April 2024.Two researchers conducted the literature search, extracting data, and evaluating quality as distinct processes.Meta-analysis was carried out using the software RevMan5.3, and the calculation of weighted mean difference (WMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were performed using either a fixed-effect model or a random-effects model.Results: Eleven studies were included, comprising 8 randomized controlled trials and 3 cohort studies.A total of 693 individuals participated in the study, of which 394 received intra-articular injections of MSCs (group A) and 299 received intra-articular injections of PRP (group B).The two groups were comparable in the five dimensions of knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score (KOOS) [pain (WMD: 0.38, 95% CI: -3.62 to 4.38, P > 0.05), symptoms (WMD: -1.48, 95% CI: -5.90 to 2.94, P > 0.05), activities of daily living (ADL, WMD: -2.36, 95% CI: -6.87 to 2.14, P > 0.05), function in sport and recreation (Sport/Rec, WMD: -3.84, 95% CI: -10.60 to 2.92, P > 0.05), knee-related quality of life (QOL, WMD: 0.09, 95% CI: -5.48 to 5.67, P > 0.05)] and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index (WOMAC, WMD: 0.47, 95% CI: -3.76 to 4.70, P > 0.05).Compared with group A, the International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Form (IKDC, WMD: 4.19, 95% CI: 2.57 to 5.82, P < 0.001) score of group B was higher.Conclusion: The short-term effectiveness of intra-articular administration of PRP for managing osteoarthritis is slightly better than that of MSCs.However, because of the limited quantity of incorporated research studies and the potential for bias, requisite in the future are studies of substantial size and superior quality.

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.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.935
Threshold uncertainty score0.492

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.359
GPT teacher head0.519
Teacher spread0.159 · 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