Efficacy of Intra-Articular Platelet-Rich Plasma in Knee Osteoarthritis: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: The treatment of knee osteoarthritis (KOA) must be comprehensive and personalised. Administration of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is one of the interventions that has been investigated for a long time. Professional medical societies have so far failed to adopt a clear and consistent stance on this therapy, despite a number of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) conducted in the past. The aim of our review was to evaluate the results of RCTs published over the last 5 years. We do believe that a meta-analysis based on the best of the available studies will help articulate the national position on this treatment modality. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Our review covers all RCTs evaluating the effect of PRP on KOA that were published between 2020 and 2024. PubMed, OVID and Scopus databases were searched for the relevant data. The effect of PRP administration was evaluated using the total WOMAC (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index), VAS (Visual Analogue Scale) pain and IKDC (International Knee Documentation Committee) scores at time periods up to 6 weeks, at 3 and 6 months. The level of bias was assessed with the use of the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2. Cochrane RevMan Web was used for data analysis. The guidelines of PRISMA 2020 (Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) were followed. RESULTS: Eighteen RCTs with a total of 971 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The meta-analysis revealed that the patients with KOA reported a systematic subjective improvement seen on the WOMAC, IKDC and VAS pain scores after intra-articular administration of PRP. Importantly, the results reached their peak and the values exceeded the minimal clinically important difference at 3 and 6 months after administration. When compared to placebo and hyaluronic acid, the intra-articular administration of PRP achieved better results. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Intra-articular administration of PRP in the treatment of KOA is a popular treatment modality appreciated by orthopaedic surgeons, rheumatologists as well as patients. Depending on the initial assessment, the PRP treatment offers pain relief for up to 12 months after administration, together with a marked improvement in function of the affected knee. Even though the PRP is frequently administered in the clinical practice, it is not recommended by prestigious professional medical societies because of its relatively small effect and the absence of knowledge concerning the optimal patient responding reliably to this method. In our study, however, a consistent pain relief and functional improvement was shown in KOA patients after the PRP administration, experienced over a period of months. We therefore assume that based on our findings the Czech Society for Orthopaedics and Traumatology and the Czech Society of Rheumatology could enlist PRP among the recommended non-operative KOA treatment modalities.
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 | 0.017 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.029 | 0.044 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".