MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404995845 · doi:10.1177/23259671241296555

Bone Marrow Aspirate Concentrate Injections for the Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

2024· review· en· W4404995845 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Joo Hyung Han, Min Young Jung, Kwangho Chung, Se‐Han Jung, Chong‐Hyuk Choi, Sung‐Hwan Kim

Bibliographic record

VenueOrthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOsteoarthritisMinimal clinically important differenceRandomized controlled trialCochrane LibraryVisual analogue scaleClinical trialWOMACPhysical therapyAdverse effectSurgeryInternal medicineAlternative medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Osteoarthritis (OA) poses a significant global burden, with conventional treatments like corticosteroid and hyaluronic acid (HA) injections commonly used. Emerging injectable biologics, including bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMAC), show promise in OA management. Purpose: To investigate the clinical efficacy of BMAC injection compared with other injection treatments for knee OA. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 1. Methods: A systematic review was conducted using PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar to identify randomized controlled trials with Level 1 evidence that compared the clinical efficacy of BMAC with other injections. The visual analog scale for pain and the Pain subscale of the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) were used as clinical scores representing pain. For functional assessment, the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index and the International Knee Documentation Committee subjective form were used. For studies comparing BMAC with HA, each clinical score was standardized to pain and function scales based on the minimal clinically important difference (MCID). Results: = .011), BMAC demonstrated favorable results over HA, with a statistically significant difference. However, these differences did not exceed the MCID. When BMAC was compared with other injections, no significant differences were observed in the degree of clinical score improvement. No serious adverse events or events significantly associated with BMAC compared with other treatments were reported. Conclusion: BMAC injections demonstrated effectiveness in providing pain relief and functional improvement for patients with knee OA. When BMAC was compared with other intra-articular injection options, distinct differences surpassing the MCID were not evident. Further research is deemed necessary to investigate the role of BMAC in the treatment of knee OA.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.041
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.041
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.012
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.302 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations12
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOrthopaedic Journal of Sports MedicineSame topicOsteoarthritis Treatment and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207