Stromal vascular fraction therapy for knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background:Regenerative cell therapies, such as adipose-derived stromal vascular fraction (SVF), have been postulated as potential treatments for knee osteoarthritis (KOA).Objectives:To assess the efficacy and safety of SVF treatment against placebo and other standard therapies for treating KOA in adult patients.Design:A systematic review.Data sources and methods:We searched the following databases: MEDLINE via PubMed, Epistemonikos, PEDro, DynaMed, TripDatabase, Elsevier via Clinicalkey and Cochrane Controlled Trials Register. We included prospective interventional studies where treatment with SVF in adults with KOA was compared against placebo or other standard therapies, and results were objectively measured with at least one widely recognised osteoarthritis scale.Results:Among 266 studies published until May 2021, nine met our inclusion criteria. A total of 239 patients (274 knees) were included in our study. The follow-up ranged from 6 to 24 months. Six studies had a control group (only one being placebo). All studies showed that SVF improved pain and functionality measured, in most cases, with the visual analogue scale and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index. In addition, five studies reported an improvement in anatomical structures, as detected in MR images. However, the number of cells contained in SVF varied substantially between different studies, which could induce a comparison bias.Conclusion:Although based on a small number of dissimilar studies, SVF was considered a safe treatment for KOA and could be promising in terms of pain, functionality and anatomical structure improvement. However, SVF products need to be standardised, the number of cells homogenised and the use of concomitant treatments reduced to establish proper comparisons.Registration:PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021284187.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.136 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".