Level A· Stronger Clinical EvidenceSystematic ReviewPubMed

Biologic Therapies for the Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis.

Delanois RE., Etcheson JI., Sodhi N., Henn RF., Gwam CU., George NE.

Systematic Review on Knee Osteoarthritis, Osteoarthritis, published in J Arthroplasty (2018) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level A· Stronger Clinical EvidenceEvidence level of this study

Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.

  • Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
  • Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
  • Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
  • Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
  • Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
Read the A–D evidence level guide

This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.

Study type
Systematic Review
Journal
J Arthroplasty (2018)
Country
United States
Reported sample size
—
Source database
PubMed
PMID
30612835
DOI
10.1016/j.arth.2018.12.001
Citations
59

Abstract (original English)

Background The use of biologic therapies for the management of knee osteoarthritis has increased, despite insufficient evidence of efficacy. Our aim was to complete a systematic review and analysis of reports utilizing the highest level-of-evidence evaluating: (1) platelet-rich plasma injections (PRPs); (2) bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells (BMSCs); (3) adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells (ADSCs); and (4) amnion-derived mesenchymal stem cells (AMSCs). Methods PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were queried for studies evaluating PRP injections, BMSCs, ADSCs, and AMSCs in patients with knee osteoarthritis. Of 1009 studies identified within the last 5 years, 123 met inclusion criteria. A comprehensive analysis of all levels-of-evidence was performed, as well as separate analysis on level-of-evidence I studies. Level-of-evidence was determined by the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons classification system. Results Although the majority of PRP reports demonstrated improvements in pain and/or function, others revealed no substantial improvements. Similar findings were noted for BMSCs, ADSCs, and AMSCs. Assessments of BMSC studies yielded majority with positive clinical results, although short-lived. Studies on ADSCs revealed improved clinical outcomes, but equivocal radiographic outcomes. Studies evaluating AMSCs demonstrated improvements in pain and fu

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.

Evidence level

Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.

How we grade evidence
Biological TherapyHumansInjections, Intra-ArticularMesenchymal Stem Cell TransplantationMesenchymal Stem CellsOsteoarthritis, KneePainPlatelet-Rich Plasma

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.

Related research