Comparison of hyaluronic acid and platelet-rich plasma in knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) is a common joint disorder, and intra-articular injections of hyaluronic acid (HA) or platelet-rich plasma (PRP) are frequently employed therapeutic interventions. However, there remains controversy regarding their efficacy. This systematic review aims to compare the effectiveness and safety of HA and PRP through a meta-analysis, with the objective of identifying the optimal treatment protocol for KOA and enhancing its management. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials evaluating the clinical outcomes of patients receiving intra-articular injections of either HA or PRP were included as eligible studies. Two independent investigators assessed the selected studies and evaluated their risk of bias. Primary outcome measures included the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score, the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) score, and other relevant assessment indices. Dichotomous variables were analyzed using risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Data analysis was conducted using RevMan software (version 5.3). RESULTS: A total of forty-two randomized controlled trials were included in this meta-analysis. No significant differences were observed between the patient populations in the two groups. The analysis demonstrated that PRP resulted in lower VAS and WOMAC scores compared to HA. Additionally, PRP exhibited superior performance across other evaluation indices. Notably, the incidence of adverse events was higher in the PRP group; however, all reported complications were mild. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the current evidence, intra-articular injection of PRP appears to be more effective than HA for the treatment of KOA, as indicated by the analysis of VAS, WOMAC scores, and other evaluation indices. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Retrospectively registered.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".