MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405219455 · doi:10.7759/cureus.75497

Optimal Dosage of Platelet-Rich Plasma Injections in Patients With Osteoarthritis of the Knee: A Scoping Review

2024· review· en· W4405219455 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ambika Singh, Deep Sehgal, Brandon Rust, Khavir A Sharieff

Bibliographic record

VenueCureus · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPeriodontal Regeneration and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOsteoarthritisPlatelet-rich plasmaDosingWOMACCINAHLMEDLINEPhysical therapyVisual analogue scaleSystematic reviewRandomized controlled trialClinical trialMeta-analysisInternal medicinePlateletPsychological interventionAlternative medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) is a healthcare burden affecting over 595 million people worldwide. Recently, intra-articular platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections from the patient's blood have shown promise in slowing KOA progression due to platelets' regenerative properties. This study aimed to evaluate the optimal dosing and schedule for PRP therapy in managing mild to moderate KOA. A systematic search was conducted across Embase, Ovid Medline, Web of Science, Cochrane Central, and CINAHL using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to identify articles published from August 2015 to March 2024. Keywords included "platelet rich plasma," "knee osteoarthritis," and "administration schedule." Inclusion criteria were studies on human patients utilizing PRP as monotherapy in experimental trials, while review articles, editorials, case reports, and meta-analyses were excluded. Three reviewers independently extracted and described patient interventions and outcomes, focusing on Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), Visual Analog Scale (VAS), and imaging changes. Thirty-nine publications with PRP monotherapy protocols were found, with fourteen meeting the inclusion criteria. Twelve studies were randomized clinical trials, and two were longitudinal cohort studies, totaling 1704 patients with a mean follow-up of 7.51 ± 4.82 months. The most common PRP protocol was 4.357 ± 1.419 mL infusions, with three doses every four weeks and a single dose being frequent. Platelet values varied, with seven including a mean platelet count, three reporting that the platelet concentration in each dose had to be at least 150,000/μL, and four did not include platelet concentration. There was notable variation in PRP acquisition protocols, blood volume, and centrifugation processes across studies. Therapeutic benefits were represented by WOMAC and VAS scores rather than imaging changes. PRP injections appear to be safe and effective for symptomatic relief of knee pain associated with mild to moderate osteoarthritis (OA). The average infusion volume was 4 mL, administered at three doses four weeks apart. Given that platelet-derived growth factors promote the proliferation of chondrocytes and mesenchymal stem cells, leading to the stimulation of articular cartilage remodeling, further studies are warranted to assess the optimal platelet count necessary for the long-term effects of PRP in knee cartilage healing and sustained symptomatic improvement.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.008
Bibliometrics0.0100.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0030.001
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.299 · 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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCureusSame topicPeriodontal Regeneration and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207