Intra-Articular Platelet-Rich Plasma versus Hyaluronic Acid in the Treatment of Hip Osteoarthritis: A Cross-Sectional Analysis of the Overlapping Systematic Reviews
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Shi Yin,1,* Xiyan Zhao,2,* Tian Li,3,* Xingxuan Li,1 Zongjun Xie,1 Hao Tang,1 Yi Wang,1 Zhiwei Jia,1 Tianlin Wen,1 Yaohong Wu4 1Department of Orthopedics, Dongzhimen Hospital, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, People’s Republic of China; 2Department of Endocrinology, Guang’anmen Hospital, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing, People’s Republic of China; 3Outpatient Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Beijing, People’s Republic of China; 4Department of Spine Surgery, Ganzhou People’s Hospital, Ganzhou, People’s Republic of China*These authors contributed equally to this workCorrespondence: Zhiwei Jia; Yaohong Wu, Email jiazhiweivip@163.com; wuyaohong1986@126.comPurpose: The debate over the effectiveness of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) versus hyaluronic acid (HA) in treating hip osteoarthritis (HOA) continues. This cross-sectional analysis of overlapping systematic reviews aims to evaluate the efficacy of intra-articular PRP compared to HA for HOA treatment. The goal is to guide decision-makers in selecting the most reliable systematic reviews and to provide treatment recommendations based on the best available evidence.Methods: We conducted comprehensive searches of PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases to identify systematic reviews comparing intra-articular PRP and HA for HOA treatment. The methodological quality of these reviews was assessed, and relevant data were extracted. The Jadad algorithm was applied to determine which reviews provided the most robust evidence.Results: Five systematic reviews were included, all categorized as Level-II evidence. The Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews scores ranged from 4 to 9, with a median score of 8. A high-quality systematic review was chosen according to the Jadad algorithm. It is suggested that there were no significant differences observed in the improvement of any short-term outcome scores (mean follow-up of 12.2 months for PRP, 11.9 months for HA), including the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, the Visual Analog Scale for pain, and the Harris Hip Score, from pre-injection to post-injection between the groups.Conclusion: There is inconsistency among the conclusions of the overlapping systematic reviews comparing intra-articular PRP and HA for HOA treatment. The best evidence indicates that PRP and HA injections yield similar short-term clinical benefits for patients with HOA. Further studies with larger sample sizes and longer follow-up periods are needed to provide more definitive conclusions.Keywords: platelet-rich plasma, hyaluronic acid, Hip osteoarthritis, systematic review
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 | 0.031 | 0.100 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.016 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".