Current use of biologic therapies for musculoskeletal disease: A survey of board-certified equine specialists
Knott LE., Fonseca-Martinez BA., O'Connor AM., Goodrich LR., McIlwraith CW., Colbath AC.
Animal Study with a reported sample of 423, published in Vet Surg (2022) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.
- 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
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
- Animal Study
- Journal
- Vet Surg (2022)
- Reported sample size
- 423
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 35383972
- PMCID
- PMC9322007
- DOI
- 10.1111/vsu.13805
- Citations
- 24
Abstract (original English)
Objective To evaluate the use of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs), autologous conditioned serum (ACS), platelet-rich plasma (PRP), and autologous protein solution (APS) for the treatment of equine musculoskeletal disease by diplomates of the American College of Veterinary Surgery (ACVS), and American College of Veterinary Sports Medicine and Rehabilitation (ACVSMR). Study design Cross-sectional study. Sample population Diplomates (n = 423). Methods An email link was sent to ACVS and ACVMR diplomates. A survey contained 59 questions regarding demographics, as well as indications, frequency, adverse effects, and limitations of use. Responses were analyzed using Fisher's exact test. Results One hundred and fifty four surveys were analyzed. Years in practice and type of practice were not associated with biologic therapy use. PRP was the most used therapy (120/137; 87.5%). PRP and MSCs were most often administered intralesionally while ACS and APS were most often administered intra-articularly. ACS (50/104; 48.1%) treatment was repeated commonly within 2 weeks of initial injection. MSCs (39/90; 43.3%) and PRP (38/100; 38%) were commonly repeated 1-2 months after initial injection and APS was typically repeated >4 months after initial injection (21/53; 39.6%). Local inflammation and expense were the most common adverse effect and limitation of use. Conclusion Diplomates most commonly ut
What this study does not prove
- • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
- • This is preclinical work; animal or laboratory results cannot be applied to humans.
Evidence level
Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.
How we grade evidenceBrowse all related research
Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.