Wide Variation in Methodology in Level I and II Studies on Cartilage Repair: A Systematic Review of Available Clinical Trials Comparing Patient Demographics, Treatment Means, and Outcomes Reporting

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

Abstract (original English)

Background The management of complex cartilage pathology in young, otherwise healthy patients can be difficult. Purpose To determine the nature of the design, endpoints chosen, and rate at which the endpoints were met in published studies and ongoing clinical trials that investigate cartilage repair and restoration procedures. Study design Systematic review. Methods A systematic review of the publicly available level I/II literature and of the publicly listed clinical trials regarding cartilage repair and restoration procedures for the knee was conducted adhering to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Results Seventeen published studies and 52 clinical trials were included. Within the 17 published studies, the most common procedure studied was microfracture (MFX) + augmentation ( N = 5; 29.4%) and the most common comparison/control group was MFX ( N = 10; 58.8%). In total, 13 different cartilage procedure groups were evaluated. For published studies, the most common patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures assessed is the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) and Visual Analog Scale-Pain (VAS) ( N = 10 studies, 58.8% each, respectively). Overall, there are 10 different PROs used among the included studies. Ten studies demonstrate superiority, 5 demonstrate noninferiority, and 2 demonstrate inferiority to the compa

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.

Browse all related research

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