Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesNarrative ReviewPubMed

Injectable Biologics: What Is the Evidence?

Kubrova E., D'Souza RS., Hunt CL., Wang Q., van Wijnen AJ., Qu W.

Narrative Review on Immune Modulation, published in Am J Phys Med Rehabil (2020) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesEvidence level of this study

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
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
Narrative Review
Journal
Am J Phys Med Rehabil (2020)
Country
United States
Reported sample size
—
Source database
PubMed
PMID
32209835
DOI
10.1097/PHM.0000000000001407
Citations
16

Abstract (original English)

Injectable biologics have attracted considerable interest in the field of musculoskeletal medicine. Biologics encompass a broad and diverse group of human tissue-derived therapeutics. The most commonly reported biologics for use in musculoskeletal conditions include platelet-rich plasma, bone marrow aspirate concentrate, mesenchymal stem cells, microfragmented fat, stromal vascular fraction, amniotic membrane-based products, and autologous conditioned serum. The benefits of biologics in tissue healing and regeneration are thought to be derived from their trophic, paracrine, and immunomodulatory functions. The purpose of this review is to define commonly used injectable biologics and to appraise current evidence on its efficacy in the treatment of musculoskeletal disease.

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
  • • This is a narrative review: it collects no new patient data and does not systematically appraise evidence quality.

Evidence level

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

How we grade evidence
Biological ProductsEvidence-Based MedicineHumansInjectionsMusculoskeletal Diseases

Browse all related research

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

Related research