The Efficacy and Safety of Orthobiologic Treatments for Greater Trochanteric Pain Syndrome: A Comprehensive Scoping Review.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: This scoping review aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of orthobiologics in the treatment of Greater Trochanteric Pain Syndrome (GTPS), with a focus on pain relief, functional improvement, and quality of life. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar, and CINAHL for studies published from January 1, 2000, to March 20, 2024. Eligible studies included case series, cohort studies, case-control studies, and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated the use of orthobiologics for GTPS. The primary outcomes assessed were pain, function, and quality of life. The quality of the studies was evaluated using the JADAD scale, the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool, and the MINORS score. Results: The review included 19 studies involving a total of 811 participants. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) was found to significantly reduce pain, as measured by the VAS scores, and to improve functional outcomes including the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS) and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) scores. These findings suggest that PRP may be an effective treatment for GTPS. The studies reported minimal side effects that were generally mild and transient. Conclusion: PRP and other orthobiologic treatments show promise in managing GTPS, showing good safety profiles and potential benefits. However, further high-quality RCTs are necessary to confirm long-term efficacy and to establish standardized treatment protocols.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.066 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".