Level A· Stronger Clinical EvidenceSystematic ReviewPubMed

Biologic Therapies for the Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis: An Updated Systematic Review.

Delanois RE., Sax OC., Chen Z., Cohen JM., Callahan DM., Mont MA.

Systematic Review with a reported sample of 51 on Knee Osteoarthritis, Osteoarthritis, published in J Arthroplasty (2022) — 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 (2022)
Country
United States
Reported sample size
51
Source database
PubMed
PMID
35609847
DOI
10.1016/j.arth.2022.05.031
Citations
22

Abstract (original English)

Background Use of "orthobiologics" continues to expand for patients who have knee osteoarthritis (OA). We sought to perform a systemic review of biologic therapies relative to comparative groups, including the following: (1) platelet-rich plasma (PRP); (2) bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells (BMSCs); (3) adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells (ADSCs); and (4) amniotic-derived mesenchymal stem cells (AMSCs). We assessed the following: (1) study methodologies; (2) cell preparations and formulations; (3) patient-reported outcome scores (PROMs); and (4) structural changes. Methods PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases were queried (2013-2021) to conduct a systematic review of biologic therapies for knee OA, according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Eighty-two studies were included: PRP (51); BMSC (15); ADSC (11); and AMSC (5). Study evaluations were made using the Modified Coleman Methodology Score. PROMs included the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index and the Visual Analog Scale. Structural change evaluations included ultrasounds, radiographs, or magnetic resonance imaging. Results PRP comprised a majority of the studies (n = 51), most with "fair" to "good" Modified Coleman Methodology Score. Studies had variable cell preparations and formulations, with comparison study results leading to inco

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
HumansOsteoarthritis, KneeInjections, Intra-ArticularTreatment OutcomePlatelet-Rich PlasmaBiological TherapyHyaluronic Acid

Browse all related research

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

Related research