A comprehensive evaluation and meta-analysis of the efficacy of autologous conditioned serum vs platelet-rich plasma in knee osteoarthritis treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is an advanced, degenerative condition of the joint that impairs movement and quality of life. The pathologic process of OA is multifaceted, and while traditional interventions offer only symptom relief, novel approaches, such as autologous conditioned serum (ACS) and platelet-rich plasma (PRP) therapy, are showing greater promise. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines and Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. The primary outcomes were changes in pain intensity (Visual Analog Scale, VAS) and functional status (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index - WOMAC). RESULTS: Relief from pain in the long term was greater with ACS than the PRP group, with better VAS score improvements at three months (p<0.001), six months (p=0.03), and the 24-month mark (p<0.001). WOMAC score evaluations demonstrated ACS had significant differences for functional recovery, along with sustained functional improvement at three months (p<0.001) and six months (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The results obtained indicate that some patients with knee OA can obtain sustained relief from pain and improve function more than one year after treatment with anti-inflammatory ACS. Sustained pain relief and functional recovery are also likely due to regulatory mechanisms on inflammation and homeostasis of the joint. This meta-analysis indicates that ACS is more effective than PRP in relieving pain and improving joint function in knee OA. Further studies should be directed towards standardization of protocols, determining the cost, and looking at other outcomes over longer periods to better understand the benefits and refine the clinical use.
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 | 0.019 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.055 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".