Platelets to the Rescue? A Literature Review of the Safety and Efficacy of Platelet-Rich Plasma for Symptomatic Knee Osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee is one of the most common joint disorders in the United States with rising prevalence due to obesity and an aging population. Regarding non-surgical approaches to management, there has been growing interest in the use of intra-articular injections (IAI) of Platelet Rich Plasma (PRP). However, there has been a lack of strong evidence to support its use in clinical practice guidelines. In this literature review, two search methods were utilized in an effort to, first, inform clinicians about PRP and, second, to shed light on recent clinical control trials regarding the safety and efficacy of IAI of PRP for symptomatic OA of the knee. A comprehensive review of eighteen clinical control trials studies was performed. The primary scope of this review focuses on outcomes related to adverse events and Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) for analysis. Other outcomes were also analyzed to evaluate for trends in efficacy. In conclusion, PRP seems to be beneficial for short-term (<6 >months) management, especially in younger patients with mild-moderate osteoarthritis. Also, multiple and cyclical injections as well as PRP preparations with concentrated growth factors may be advantageous. The use of CaCl2 in the preparation of PRP appears to have adverse effects. In the mist of overwhelming bias and inconsistencies in study designs and wide variability in PRP preparation, current literature may not provide strong evidence to influence changes to future national guideline recommendations. Note: This paper does not review non-autologous uses of platelet-rich plasma or platelet-rich plasma co-administered with mesenchymal or multipotent stem cells as those from placenta, adipose tissue, or those derived from any other sources.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".