MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414975028 · doi:10.52403/ijrr.20251003

Comparison between Bone Marrow Aspirate Concentrate versus Stromal Vascular Fraction on Osteoarthritis Knee Patients: Meta-Analysis

2025· article· en· W4414975028 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
I Gede Eka Wiratnaya, Putu Bihan Surya Kinanta

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Research and Review · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHematological disorders and diagnostics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWOMACOsteoarthritisBone marrow aspirateVisual analogue scaleStromal vascular fractionBone marrowStromal cell

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee is a leading cause of disability, with limited nonoperative treatment options that primarily focus on symptom relief rather than disease modification. Cell-based therapies, including bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMAC) and stromal vascular fraction (SVF), have emerged as promising alternatives for managing knee OA. However, clinical evidence comparing their efficacy remains limited. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched for clinical studies reporting outcomes after a single intra-articular injection of autologous BMAC or SVF in patients with varying degrees of knee OA. Studies involving adjunct procedures, culture-expanded cells, or multiple injections were excluded. Pain reduction, assessed by the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), and functional improvement, measured by the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), were the primary outcomes. Standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) was calculated using a random-effects model. Results: Six studies comprising 261 patients (111 BMAC, 150 SVF) were included. Both treatments resulted in significant improvement in pain and function. BMAC reduced mean VAS from 4.5 ± 1.27 to 1.71 ± 0.82 (SMD 2.609; 95% CI, 1.781–3.436), while SVF reduced VAS from 6.1 ± 1.1 to 3.3 ± 1.5 (SMD 3.470; 95% CI, 1.175–5.765). SVF showed significantly greater pain reduction compared with BMAC (P < 0.0001). Both BMAC (SMD 1.403; 95% CI, 0.385–2.421) and SVF (SMD 1.125; 95% CI, 0.497–1.754) demonstrated equivalent functional improvement according to WOMAC scores (P = 0.626). Study heterogeneity and methodological inconsistencies were noted, particularly in cell preparation and reporting standards. Conclusion: A single injection of either BMAC or SVF provides short-term symptomatic relief in knee OA. SVF appears superior to BMAC for pain reduction, while both are equally effective in improving function. Given the heterogeneity of preparation protocols and limited high-quality evidence, results should be interpreted with caution. Further standardized, large-scale randomized controlled trials are needed to establish definitive recommendations. Keywords: Knee osteoarthritis; Bone marrow aspirate concentrate; Stromal vascular fraction; Cell-based therapy

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.615
Threshold uncertainty score0.441

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.172
GPT teacher head0.474
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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Research and ReviewSame topicHematological disorders and diagnosticsFrench-language works237,207