Level A· Stronger Clinical EvidenceSystematic ReviewEurope PMCOpen access

Disparities in Evidence and Media Portrayal of Injectable Orthobiologics for Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review of Randomized Trials and News Media

Zhang EJX., Tay RWL., Hui JHP., Tan BWL.

Systematic Review on Knee Osteoarthritis, Osteoarthritis, published in Orthop J Sports Med (2026) — 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
Orthop J Sports Med (2026)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
42221207
PMCID
PMC13221584
DOI
10.1177/23259671261443876

Abstract (original English)

Background Injectable orthobiologics such as platelet-rich plasma (PRP), mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs), and autologous protein solution (APS) have gained popularity as regenerative options for knee osteoarthritis (OA). Despite widespread clinical and public interest, evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) remains heterogeneous, and public understanding may be shaped more by media representation than by data-driven evidence. Purpose To synthesize the current evidence on injectable orthobiologics for knee OA and evaluate whether media portrayals align with the strength and quality of available clinical evidence. Study design Systematic review; Level of evidence, 1. Methods A dual-pronged systematic review was performed on March 31, 2025, following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science were searched for RCTs comparing injectable orthobiologics (PRP, MSCs, APS) versus placebo (saline or sham) in knee OA. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. In parallel, the Factiva database was searched for English-language news articles reporting on injectable orthobiologics for knee OA. Extracted variables included biologic type, benefits and drawbacks discussed, and tone (favorable, neutral, or cautionary). Results Of 869 articles, 14 RCTs met the inclusion criteria. Eight demons

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