Level A· Stronger Clinical EvidenceMeta-analysisEurope PMC

Clinical efficacy of mesenchymal stem cells and platelet-rich plasma in the therapy of osteoarthritis: a meta-analysis

Aixirefu A., Chen R., Wang H.

Meta-analysis on Osteoarthritis, published in Am J Transl Res (2024) — 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
Meta-analysis
Journal
Am J Transl Res (2024)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
39398550
PMCID
PMC11470341
DOI
10.62347/jujv3321
Citations
1

Abstract (original English)

Background Intra-articular administration of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) presents a novel methodology for managing osteoarthritis, but there is still no definite evidence of its efficacy. Aim To assess the comparative effectiveness of MSCs and platelet-rich plasma (PRP) for managing osteoarthritis by reviewing the literature and using meta-analysis. Methods Randomized controlled trials and cohort studies comparing MSCs and PRP for managing osteoarthritis were included. We searched 'osteoarthritis', 'mesenchymal stem cell', 'platelet-rich plasma', and other words in Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane Library database. The search period encompassed the entire duration of the databases, starting from its inception until April 2024. Two researchers conducted the literature search, extracting data, and evaluating quality as distinct processes. Meta-analysis was carried out using the software RevMan5.3, and the calculation of weighted mean difference (WMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were performed using either a fixed-effect model or a random-effects model. Results Eleven studies were included, comprising 8 randomized controlled trials and 3 cohort studies. A total of 693 individuals participated in the study, of which 394 received intra-articular injections of MSCs (group A) and 299 received intra-articular injections of PRP (group B). The two groups were comparable in the five di

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

Browse all related research

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

Related research