MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6907843203 · doi:10.25384/sage.c.5791516

Intra-articular Injection of Autologous Adipose-Derived Stem Cells or Stromal Vascular Fractions: Are They Effective for Patients With Knee Osteoarthritis? A Systematic Review With Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2022· other· en· W6907843203 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueSage Journals Data · 2022
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOsteoarthritisPlaceboRandomized controlled trialMesenchymal stem cellAdverse effectStem cellViscosupplementationHyaluronic acidCochrane Library

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background:Intra-articular injection of adipose-derived stem cells, which are divided into adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells (ASCs) and adipose-derived stromal vascular fractions (ADSVFs), has been reported to be a viable treatment modality for knee osteoarthritis (OA); however, its efficacy remains limited.Purpose:This study aimed to provide comprehensive information about the efficacy and safety of intra-articular injections of autologous ASCs and ADSVFs without adjuvant treatment in patients with knee OA.Study Design:Meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 1.Methods:A systematic search of the MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the efficacy and safety of intra-articular injections of autologous ASCs or ADSVFs without adjuvant treatments compared with placebo or hyaluronic acid in patients with knee OA. Clinically, the 100-mm visual analog scale for pain relief and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index for functional improvement were implemented. Radiologically, cartilage status was assessed using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Procedure-related knee pain, swelling, and adverse events (AEs) were evaluated for safety. Additionally, we performed subgroup analyses comparing ASCs versus ADSVFs. Methodological quality was assessed using the modified Coleman Methodology Score (mCMS).Results:A total of 5 RCTs were included in this study. Based on the meta-analysis, ASCs or ADSVFs showed significantly better pain relief at 6 months (<i>Z</i> = 7.62; <i>P</i> &lt; .0001) and 12 months (<i>Z</i> = 7.21; <i>P</i> &lt; .0001) and functional improvement at 6 months (<i>Z</i> = 4.13; <i>P</i> &lt; .0001) and 12 months (<i>Z</i> = 3.79; <i>P</i> = .0002), without a difference in procedure-related knee pain or swelling compared with controls. Although a meta-analysis with regard to cartilage improvements was not performed owing to heterogeneous MRI assessment, 3 studies reported significantly improved cartilage status after the injection. No serious AEs associated with ASCs or ADSVFs were reported. Subgroup analyses showed similar efficacy between ASC and ADSVF treatments. The median mCMS was 70 (range, 55-75).Conclusion:For patients with knee OA, intra-articular injection of autologous ASCs or ADSVFs without adjuvant treatment showed remarkable clinical efficacy and safety at short-term follow-up. Some degree of efficacy has been shown for cartilage regeneration in knee OA, although the evidence remains limited. Further RCTs that directly compare ASCs and ADSVFs are needed.

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)0.036
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.466
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0360.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0520.009
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.263 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSage Journals DataFrench-language works237,207