Regenerative Sports Medicine: Past, Present, and Future (Adapted From the PASSOR Legacy Award Presentation; AAPMR; October 2016).
Borg-Stein J., Osoria HL., Hayano T.
Narrative Review, published in PM R (2018) — 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
- Narrative Review
- Journal
- PM R (2018)
- Country
- United States
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- PubMed
- PMID
- 30031963
- DOI
- 10.1016/j.pmrj.2018.07.003
- Citations
- 8
Abstract (original English)
Regenerative medicine has shown dramatic expanse and evolution in the past decade. Within that milieu, physiatrists are taking an active role in research, clinical care delivery, and education. The purpose of this review is to provide a balance among evidence, theory, experience, clinical trends, and the foreseeable future. We focus on the literature that reports the research with the best methodology in each practice area, recognizing that the level of evidence varies substantially among different treatment modalities and conditions. The following elements are included: an overview of the evolution of currently available regenerative techniques, evidence base for each available modality (prolotherapy, platelet rich plasma, bone marrow aspirate concentrate and stem cells, adipose-derived stem cells, and amniotic tissue products), general principles in the application of these treatments, and discussion and a vision of what lies ahead. We expect that practitioners will use this review to facilitate clinical decision making and to provide a core knowledge base to assist when counseling patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.
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 evidenceBrowse all related research
Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.