SVF
Level A· Stronger Clinical EvidenceSystematic Review

Clinical Outcomes of Biologic Therapies for Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Studies With ≥12-Month Follow-up.

Oka T., Kitagawa T., Nasu T., Kurasawa Y., Kunihara H., Suzuki K.

Systematic Review on Knee Osteoarthritis, Osteoarthritis, published in Mod Rheumatol (2026) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

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
Mod Rheumatol (2026)
Country
England
Reported sample size
—
PMID
41685775
DOI
10.1093/mr/roag010

Abstract (original English)

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the clinical outcomes of biologic therapies, which include platelet-rich plasma and cell-based therapies (e.g., adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells), on pain, physical function, and disease progression in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA), focusing on studies with a follow-up of at least 12 months. We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) posted at some stage in January 2000-May 2025. Eligible research protected the ones in adults with Kellgren-Lawrence grades I-III OA who underwent at least 12 months of follow-up. The bias risk was assessed, and the evidence certainty was evaluated. Random-effects models were used for pooled analyses. Fourteen RCTs were included. Compared with control treatments, biologic therapies significantly reduced pain and improved physical function. Potential structural benefits, including cartilage thickness preservation and favourable biochemical changes, were noted. However, substantial heterogeneity in study design and intervention protocols, along with potential publication bias, reduced the certainty of evidence to a very low level. Biologic therapies may be associated with improvements in pain and physical function at ≥12 months of follow-up, with preliminary indications of structural benefit. Nevertheless, high-quality multicenter RCTs with extended follow-up are warrant

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
KneeKnee OsteoarthritisOsteoarthritis
View on PubMedDOI

Related research