Level A· Stronger Clinical EvidenceMeta-analysisEurope PMCOpen access

Equine osteoarthritis: is intra-articular polyacrylamide gel more effective than corticosteroid in improving lameness?

Bowkett-Pritchard C.

Meta-analysis on Osteoarthritis, published in Vet Evid (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
Meta-analysis
Journal
Vet Evid (2022)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
42007289
PMCID
PMC13082269
DOI
10.18849/ve.v7i1.413

Abstract (original English)

PICO question In horses with naturally occurring osteoarthritis, is treatment with intra-articular polyacrylamide gel more likely to reduce the severity of clinical signs associated with lameness when compared to treatment with intra-articular corticosteroid? Clinical bottom line Category of research question Treatment The number and type of study designs reviewed Twelve studies; four case series, three uncontrolled prospective studies, one non-blinded, non-randomised control trial, one non-blinded randomised control trial, two systematic reviews and one systematic review and meta-analysis Strength of evidence Weak Outcomes reported Studies examined: Clinical signs relating to lameness after use of corticosteroid or polyacrylamide gel to treat osteoarthritis; improvement in lameness and treatment success (including return to work in some papers) Conclusion It is not possible to recommend one treatment over the other given the absence of studies which provide direct comparison. This highlights the need for further controlled and comparative studies.

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