Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China.
Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong Province, China.
J Orthop Surg Res. 2019 Nov 27;14(1):385. doi: 10.1186/s13018-019-1363-y.
The purpose of this study was (1) to perform a summary of meta-analyses comparing platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injection with hyaluronic acid (HA) and placebo injection for KOA patients, (2) to determine which meta-analysis provides the best available evidence to making proposals for the use of PRP in the treatment of KOA patients, and (3) to highlight gaps in the literature that require future investigation.
PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases search were performed for meta-analyses which compared PRP injection with HA or placebo. Clinical outcomes and adverse events were extracted from these meta-analyses. Meta-analysis quality was assessed using the Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses (QUOROM) systems and the Oxman-Guyatt quality appraisal tool. The Jadad decision algorithm was also used to determine which meta-analysis provided the best available evidence.
Four meta-analyses were included in our study, and all of these articles were Level I evidence. The QUOROM score of each included meta-analysis range from 14 to 17 points (mean score 15, maximum score 18), and the Oxman-Guyatt score range from 4 to 6 points (mean score 5, maximum score 7). Three meta-analyses indicated PRP showed more benefit in pain relief and functional improvement than the control group, and the other one suggested no difference between these groups. All included meta-analyses found no statistical difference in adverse events between these groups. In addition, a meta-analysis conducted by Shen et al. got the highest methodological quality score and suggested that PRP provided better pain relief and function improvement in the treatment of KOA.
For short-term follow-up (≤1 year), intra-articular PRP injection is more effective in terms of pain relief and function improvement in the treatment of KOA patients than HA and placebo, and there is no difference in the risk of an adverse event between PRP and HA or placebo.
Level I evidence, a summary of meta-analyses TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO ID CRD42018116168.
本研究的目的是:(1) 对比较富血小板血浆 (PRP) 注射与透明质酸 (HA) 和安慰剂注射治疗膝骨关节炎 (KOA) 患者的荟萃分析进行总结,(2) 确定哪种荟萃分析提供了最佳可用证据,以便提出 PRP 治疗 KOA 患者的建议,以及 (3) 强调需要进一步研究的文献空白。
对比较 PRP 注射与 HA 或安慰剂的荟萃分析进行了 PubMed、EMBASE 和 Cochrane 数据库检索。从这些荟萃分析中提取临床结果和不良事件。使用 QUOROM 系统和 Oxman-Guyatt 质量评估工具评估荟萃分析质量。还使用 Jadad 决策算法来确定哪种荟萃分析提供了最佳可用证据。
本研究纳入了 4 项荟萃分析,所有这些文章均为 I 级证据。纳入的每项荟萃分析的 QUOROM 评分范围为 14 至 17 分(平均评分 15 分,最高评分 18 分),Oxman-Guyatt 评分范围为 4 至 6 分(平均评分 5 分,最高评分 7 分)。三项荟萃分析表明,PRP 在缓解疼痛和改善功能方面优于对照组,另一项荟萃分析则表明两组之间无差异。所有纳入的荟萃分析均发现两组之间不良事件无统计学差异。此外,Shen 等人进行的一项荟萃分析获得了最高的方法学质量评分,并表明 PRP 在治疗 KOA 方面能更好地缓解疼痛和改善功能。
在短期随访(≤1 年)中,关节内 PRP 注射在缓解 KOA 患者疼痛和改善功能方面比 HA 和安慰剂更有效,且 PRP 与 HA 或安慰剂在不良事件风险方面无差异。
I 级证据,荟萃分析总结。
PROSPERO ID CRD42018116168。