scholarly journals Outcomes of platelet-rich plasma for plantar fasciopathy: a best-evidence synthesis

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Tao Yu ◽  
Jiang Xia ◽  
Bing Li ◽  
Haichao Zhou ◽  
Yunfeng Yang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Functional Outcomes ◽  
Platelet Rich Plasma ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Common Disease ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Plantar Fasciopathy ◽  
Best Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Significant Superiority

Abstract Background Plantar fasciopathy (PF) is a very common disease, affecting about 1/10 people in their lifetime. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) had been demonstrated to be useful in achieving helpful effects for plantar fasciopathy. The purpose of this study was to compare the pain and functional outcomes between PRP and corticosteroid (CS) or placebo for plantar fasciopathy through meta-analysis and provide the best evidence. Methods Literature was searched systematically to explore related studies that were published in Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, Medline, SpringerLink, OVID, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Articles regarding comparative research about the outcomes of PRP therapy and CS or placebo injection were selected. Data of pain and functional outcomes was extracted and imported into Reviewer Manager 5.3 to analyze. Results Thirteen RCTs were included and analyzed. Analysis results showed significant superiority of PRP in outcome scores when compared with CS (VAS: MD = − 0.85, P < 0.0001, I2 = 85%; AOFAS: MD = 10.05, P < 0.0001, I2 = 85%), whereas there is no statistical difference in well-designed double-blind trials (VAS: MD = 0.15, P = 0.72, I2 = 1%; AOFAS: MD = 2.71, P = 0.17, I2 = 0%). In the comparison of the PRP and the placebo, the pooled mean difference was − 3.76 (P < 0.0001, 95% CI = − 4.34 to − 3.18). Conclusions No superiority of PRP had been found in well-designed double-blind studies, whereas it is implied that the outcomes of PRP are better than placebo based on available evidence.

scholarly journals Is acupuncture effective for knee osteoarthritis? A protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2022 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. e052270
Author(s):  
Chuan-Yang Liu ◽  
Jian-Feng Tu ◽  
Myeong Soo Lee ◽  
Ling-Yu Qi ◽  
Fang-Ting Yu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Knee Osteoarthritis ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Demographic Data ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Biomedical Literature ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
China National Knowledge Infrastructure ◽  
Best Evidence Synthesis

IntroductionKnee osteoarthritis (KOA) is one of the leading causes of disability. The effectiveness of acupuncture for treating KOA remains controversial. This protocol describes the method of a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the effectiveness and safety of acupuncture for treating KOA.Methods and analysisFour English databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library databases and Web of Science) and four Chinese databases (China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, VIP Database for Chinese Technical Periodicals, and Wanfang) will be searched from the database inception to 1 September 2021. All randomised controlled trials related to acupuncture for KOA will be included. Extracted data will include publication details, basic information, demographic data, intervention details and patient outcomes. The primary outcome will be pain intensity. Risk of bias will be assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias. Article selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment will be performed in duplicate by two independent reviewers. If the meta-analysis is precluded, we will conduct a descriptive synthesis using a best-evidence synthesis approach. The strength of recommendations and quality of evidence will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation working group methodology.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not required because individual patient data are not included. This protocol was registered in the international Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews on 25 February 2021. The systematic review and meta-analysis will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. The findings will also be disseminated through conference presentations.Trial registration numberCRD42021232177.

Interventions for students with autism in inclusive settings: A best-evidence synthesis and meta-analysis.

2019 ◽  
Vol 145 (5) ◽  
pp. 490-507 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laci Watkins ◽  
Katherine Ledbetter-Cho ◽  
Mark O'Reilly ◽  
Lucy Barnard-Brak ◽  
Pau Garcia-Grau
Keyword(s):  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Best Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Inclusive Settings ◽  
Students With Autism

scholarly journals Does the Intradiscal Injection of Platelet Rich Plasma Have Any Beneficial Role in the Management of Lumbar Disc Disease?

2021 ◽  
pp. 219256822199836
Author(s):  
Sathish Muthu ◽  
Madhan Jeyaraman ◽  
Girinivasan Chellamuthu ◽  
Naveen Jeyaraman ◽  
Rashmi Jain ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Beneficial Effect ◽  
Platelet Rich Plasma ◽  
Lumbar Disc ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Significant Heterogeneity ◽  
Disc Disease ◽  
Lumbar Disc Disease ◽  
Beneficial Role ◽  
Sf 36

Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Objectives: We performed this meta-analysis to evaluate whether intradiscal Platelet Rich Plasma(PRP) injection has any beneficial role in the management of lumbar disc disease. Methods: We conducted independent and duplicate electronic database searches including PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library till September 2020 for studies investigating the role of intradiscal PRP in the management of lumbar disc disease. The analysis was performed in the R platform using OpenMeta[Analyst] software. Results: 13 studies including 2 RCTs, 5 prospective, and 6 retrospective studies involving 319 patients were included in the meta-analysis. A single-arm meta-analysis of the included studies showed a beneficial effect of the intervention in terms of pain relief outcomes like VAS score (p < 0.001), pain component of SF-36 (p = 0.003) while such improvement was not seen in functional outcome measures like ODI score (p = 0.071), the physical component of SF-36 (p = 0.130) with significant heterogeneity noted among the included studies. No structural improvement in magnetic resonance imaging was observed (p = 0.106). No additional procedure-related adverse events were noted in the included studies (p = 0.662). Conclusion: There is a paucity of high-quality studies to give conclusive evidence on the benefits of intradiscal PRP for lumbar disc disease. Although intradiscal PRP injection has shown some beneficial effect in controlling pain for lumbar disc disease, we could not find structural or functional improvement from the included studies. Hence, we recommend large double-blind double-arm randomized controlled studies to analyze the benefits of the intervention being analyzed.

scholarly journals Use of Platelet-Rich Plasma for the Improvement of Pain and Function in Rotator Cuff Tears: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis With Bias Assessment

2019 ◽  
Vol 48 (8) ◽  
pp. 2028-2041 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiao Chen ◽  
Ian A. Jones ◽  
Ryan Togashi ◽  
Caron Park ◽  
C. Thomas Vangsness
Keyword(s):  
Rotator Cuff ◽  
Functional Outcomes ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Platelet Rich Plasma ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Vas Scores ◽  
Level 1 ◽  
Meta Analyses

Background: Many clinical trials have investigated the use of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) to treat rotator cuff–related abnormalities. Several meta-analyses have been published, but none have focused exclusively on level 1 randomized controlled trials. Purpose: To assess the efficacy of PRP for rotator cuff–related abnormalities and evaluate how specific tendon involvement, the inclusion of leukocytes, and the use of gel/nongel formulations affect pain and functional outcomes. Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: The literature was screened following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Baseline, short-term, and long-term data were extracted for the Constant score, University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) score, visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, retear rate, Simple Shoulder Test (SST), and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score. The 100-point modified Coleman Methodology Score (CMS) was used to assess methodological quality. Funnel plots and the Egger test were used to screen for publication bias, and sensitivity analysis was performed to evaluate the effect of potential outliers. Results: A total of 18 level 1 studies were included in this review, 17 (1116 patients) of which could be included in quantitative analysis. The mean modified CMS was 79.4 ± 10.39. The Constant scores of patients who received PRP were significantly better short term (weighted mean difference [WMD], 2.89 [95% CI, 0.89-4.90]; P < .01) and long term (WMD, 2.66 [95% CI, 1.13-4.19]; P < .01). The VAS scores were significantly improved short term (WMD, –0.45 [95% CI, –0.75 to −0.15]; P < .01). Sugaya grade IV and V retears in PRP-treated patients were significantly reduced long term (odds ratio [OR], 0.34 [95% CI, 0.20-0.57]; P < .01). In PRP-treated patients with multiple tendons torn, there were reduced odds of retears (OR, 0.28 [95% CI, 0.13-0.60]; P < .01). Patients who received leukocyte-rich PRP had significantly better Constant scores compared with the leukocyte-poor PRP group, but there was no difference in VAS scores. Patients receiving PRP gel reported higher Constant scores compared with the controls, whereas those receiving nongel PRP treatments did not, although there was no difference in VAS scores. Long-term odds of retears were decreased, regardless of leukocyte content (leukocyte-poor PRP: OR, 0.36 [95% CI, 0.16-0.82]; leukocyte-rich PRP: OR, 0.32 [95% CI, 0.16-0.65]; all P < .05) or usage of gel (nongel: OR, 0.42 [95% CI, 0.23-0.76]; gel: OR, 0.17 [95% CI, 0.05-0.51]; all P < .01). Conclusion: Long-term retear rates were significantly decreased in patients with rotator cuff–related abnormalities who received PRP. Significant improvements in PRP-treated patients were noted for multiple functional outcomes, but none reached their respective minimal clinically important differences. Overall, our results suggest that PRP may positively affect clinical outcomes, but limited data, study heterogeneity, and poor methodological quality hinder firm conclusions.

scholarly journals Intra-articular saline injection as effective as corticosteroids, platelet-rich plasma and hyaluronic acid for hip osteoarthritis pain: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

2020 ◽  
pp. bjsports-2020-102179
Author(s):  
Aaron Gazendam ◽  
Seper Ekhtiari ◽  
Anthony Bozzo ◽  
Mark Phillips ◽  
Mohit Bhandari
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Functional Outcomes ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Platelet Rich Plasma ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Hip Osteoarthritis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Saline Injection ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Indirect Comparisons

ObjectiveIntra-articular (IA) injections represent a commonly used modality in the treatment of hip osteoarthritis (OA). Commonly used injections include corticosteroids (CCS), hyaluronic acid (HA) and platelet-rich plasma (PRP). A network meta-analysis allows for comparison among more than two treatment arms and uses both direct and indirect comparisons between interventions. The objective of this network meta-analysis is to compare the efficacy of the various IA injectable treatments in treating hip OA at up to 6 months of follow-up.DesignThis is a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Bayesian random-effects model was performed to assess the direct and indirect comparisons of all treatment options.Data sourcesPubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus and Web of Science, from inception to October 2019.Eligibility criteria for selected studiesRandomised controlled trials assessing the efficacy of CCS, HA, PRP and placebo in the form of IA saline injection for patients with hip OA.ResultsEleven randomised controlled trials comprising 1353 patients were included. For pain outcomes at both 2–4 and 6 months, no intervention significantly outperformed placebo IA injection. For functional outcomes at both 2–4 and 6 months, no intervention significantly outperformed placebo IA injection. Regarding change from baseline at 2–4 months and 6 months, pooled data demonstrated that all interventions (including placebo), with the exception of HA+PRP, led to a clinically important improvement in both pain, exceeding the minimal clinically important difference.ConclusionEvidence suggests that IA hip saline injections performed as well as all other injectable options in the management of hip pain and functional outcomes.

scholarly journals Role of platelet-rich plasma in the treatment of osteoarthritis: a meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 48 (10) ◽  
pp. 030006052096466
Author(s):  
Haijiang Ren ◽  
Shouwei Zhang ◽  
Xuejie Wang ◽  
Zehui Li ◽  
Wenlai Guo
Keyword(s):  
Patient Satisfaction ◽  
Clinical Efficacy ◽  
Platelet Rich Plasma ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Womac Score ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Absolute Value ◽  
Vas Score ◽  
The Absolute

Objective The clinical efficacy of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) in the treatment of osteoarthritis remains controversial. In this paper, we evaluated the clinical efficacy of PRP in the treatment of osteoarthritis using meta-analysis, providing evidence for the selection of clinical treatment options. Methods We performed a computer-based search of PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases to retrieve articles using the search terms “platelet-rich plasma”, “osteoarthrosis”, and “knee joint”. Quality evaluation and data extraction were performed. The combined effect was assessed using RevMan 5.3 software. Results Five randomized controlled trials, involving 320 patients, were included in this study. No significant differences were observed in the International Knee Documentation Committee score, visual analog scale (VAS) score, or the absolute value of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score between the experimental and control groups. The absolute value of the VAS score and change in the WOMAC score were significantly decreased and patient satisfaction was increased in the experimental group, as compared with the control group. Conclusion The findings of this meta-analysis suggest that intra-articular injection of PRP is an effective treatment for osteoarthritis that can reduce post-operative pain, improve locomotor function, and increase patient satisfaction.

scholarly journals Intra-articular corticosteroids for treatment of temporomandibular joint internal disorders: protocol for systematic review and network meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (9) ◽  
pp. e034327
Author(s):  
Daniela Torres ◽  
Carlos Zaror ◽  
Verónica Iturriaga ◽  
Aurelio Tobias
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Temporomandibular Joint ◽  
Platelet Rich Plasma ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Minimally Invasive Therapy ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
The Body ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Invasive Therapy ◽  
Assessment Development

IntroductionInternal temporomandibular joint (TMJ) disorders are present in approximately 80% of patients with symptomatic temporomandibular disorders. Among the minimally invasive therapies, we find the intra-articular infiltration of substances, such as corticosteroids, hyaluronic acid or platelet-rich plasma accompanied or not by an arthrocentesis. There are several studies on minimally invasive therapy for internal TMJ disorders; however, none compares the effectiveness of the different intra-articular corticosteroids to each other.The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of the different intra-articular corticosteroids for the treatment of internal disorders of the TMJ and compare them to each other or to other minimally invasive therapies.Methods and analysisA systematic search will be carried out up to December 2019 in the electronic databases: Medline, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, SCOPUS and LILACS.Randomised clinical trials evaluating patients with internal disorders of the TMJ, with intra-articular corticosteroid therapy and comparing these to each other and/or to other minimally invasive therapy will be included. The main outcomes will be pain and range of motion measured through validated scales.Two review authors will independently screen search results, extract data from included studies and assess the risk of bias in those studies using the Revised Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool (RoB 2.0). In the case of any discrepancy and failure to reach consensus, this will be resolved by a third reviewer.A network meta-analysis will be conducted based on direct comparisons to generate indirect comparisons of the different treatments. Data will be combined in a meta-analysis using a random effects model.The principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system will be used to assess the overall quality of the body of evidence associated with the main results.Ethics and disseminationThis protocol will not require ethical approval. The results of this review will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications.Trial registration numberCRD42019129014.

scholarly journals Platelet-rich plasma versus hyaluronic acid in knee osteoarthritis: A meta-analysis with the consistent ratio of injection

2020 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 230949901988766 ◽  
Author(s):  
Qipeng Wu ◽  
Xuefen Luo ◽  
Yuan Xiong ◽  
Guohui Liu ◽  
Junwen Wang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hyaluronic Acid ◽  
Knee Osteoarthritis ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Platelet Rich Plasma ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
International Knee Documentation Committee ◽  
Joint Disease ◽  
Functional Improvement ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Cochrane Library

Osteoarthritis (OA) is an extremely common form of chronic joint disease which can affect the knees and other joints of older adults, leading to debilitating disability in the knee and consequent reduction in quality of life. Intra-articular platelet-rich plasma (PRP) or hyaluronic acid (HA) injections are effective for maintaining long-term beneficial effects without increasing the risk of intra-articular infection. However, few studies have compared the relative value of HA and PRP for OA treatment. PRP is more effective than HA for OA treatment in recent studies of this topic. We systematically searched Medline, SpringerLink, Embase, Pubmed, Clinical Trials.gov, the Cochrane Library, and OVID for all articles published through May 2018. Any study was included that compared the effect of HA and PRP (consistent treatment cycle and frequency of injection) on patient’s pain levels and functionality improvements. Review Manager 5.3 was used to analyze data regarding these two primary outcomes. We included 10 total studies in the present meta-analysis. International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC; MD: 10.37, 95% confidence interval (CI): 9.13 to 11.62, p < 0.00001), Western Ontario and MacMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC; MD: −20.69, 95% CI: −24.50 to −16.89, p < 0.00001, I2 = 94%), and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS; MD: −1.50, 95% CI: −1.61 to −1.38, p < 0.00001, I2 = 90%) differed significantly between the PRP and HA groups. Knee Osteoarthritis Outcome Scores (KOOSs) did not differ significantly ( χ2 = 23.53, I2 = 41%, p = 0.11). Our hypothesis appears not to be confirmed because PRP and HA did not differ significantly with respect to KOOS score. However, the IKDC, WOMAC, and VAS scores differed significantly. Thus, based on the current evidence, PRP appears to be better than HA at achieving pain relief and self-reported functional improvement. Ia, meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials.

scholarly journals Recalibrating the risk of hamstring strain injury (HSI): A 2020 systematic review and meta-analysis of risk factors for index and recurrent hamstring strain injury in sport

2020 ◽  
Vol 54 (18) ◽  
pp. 1081-1088 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brady Green ◽  
Matthew N Bourne ◽  
Nicol van Dyk ◽  
Tania Pizzari
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Significant Risk ◽  
Older Age ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Hamstring Strain ◽  
Best Evidence Synthesis ◽  
History Of

ObjectiveTo systematically review risk factors for hamstring strain injury (HSI).DesignSystematic review update.Data sourcesDatabase searches: (1) inception to 2011 (original), and (2) 2011 to December 2018 (update). Citation tracking, manual reference and ahead of press searches.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesStudies presenting prospective data evaluating factors associated with the risk of index and/or recurrent HSI.MethodSearch result screening and risk of bias assessment. A best evidence synthesis for each factor and meta-analysis, where possible, to determine the association with risk of HSI.ResultsThe 78 studies captured 8,319 total HSIs, including 967 recurrences, in 71,324 athletes. Older age (standardised mean difference=1.6, p=0.002), any history of HSI (risk ratio (RR)=2.7, p<0.001), a recent HSI (RR=4.8, p<0.001), previous anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury (RR=1.7, p=0.002) and previous calf strain injury (RR=1.5, p<0.001) were significant risk factors for HSI. From the best evidence synthesis, factors relating to sports performance and match play, running and hamstring strength were most consistently associated with HSI risk. The risk of recurrent HSI is best evaluated using clinical data and not the MRI characteristics of the index injury.Summary/conclusionOlder age and a history of HSI are the strongest risk factors for HSI. Future research may be directed towards exploring the interaction of risk factors and how these relationships fluctuate over time given the occurrence of index and recurrent HSI in sport is multifactorial.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document