Level A· Stronger Clinical EvidenceMeta-analysisPubMed

Intra-articular injection choice for osteoarthritis: making sense of cell source-an updated systematic review and dual network meta-analysis.

Zhang Y., Yang H., He F., Zhu X.

Meta-analysis on Osteoarthritis, published in Arthritis Res Ther (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
Arthritis Res Ther (2022)
Country
England
Reported sample size
—
Source database
PubMed
PMID
36443838
DOI
10.1186/s13075-022-02953-0

Abstract (original English)

Intra-articular injection is indicated for mild or moderate osteoarthritis (OA). However, the superiority of cell-based injection and the role of diverse cell sources are still unclear. This study aimed to compare the therapeutic effect of intra-articular injection with mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) and cell-free methods for OA treatment. A literature search of published scientific data was carried out from PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and China National Knowledge Internet (CNKI). Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) compared the efficacy and safety of MSC and cell-free intra-articular injection treatments for OA with at least 6-month follow-up. Dual network meta-analysis validated the therapeutic advantages of MSC treatments (VAS, Bayesian: 90% versus 10% and SUCRA: 94.9% versus 5.1%; WOMAC total, Bayesian: 83% versus 17% and SUCRA: 90.1% versus 9.9%) but also suggested a potential negative safety induced by cell injection (adverse events, Bayesian: 100% versus 0% and SUCRA: 98.2% versus 1.8%). For the MSC source aspect, adipose mesenchymal stem cells (ADMSCs) and umbilical cord mesenchymal stem cells (UBMSCs) showed a better curative effect on pain relief and function improvement compared with bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells (BMMSCs). Intra-articular injection of MSCs is associated with more effective pain alleviation and function improvement t

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
HumansInjections, Intra-ArticularOsteoarthritisMesenchymal Stem CellsPain

Browse all related research

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

Related research