Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28424852›Full record

SynthesisInternational orthopaedics2017

Clinical application of bone morphogenetic proteins for bone healing: a systematic review.

Gopal Shankar Krishnakumar, Alice Roffi, Davide Reale, Elizaveta Kon, Giuseppe Filardo

Registry-linked trialAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International orthopaedics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04200872 (Retrospective Study on the Clinical Outcomes of the Aseptic Pseudarthrosis Treatment of the Upper Limb), which is not on this map. Cited by 55 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
55citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT04200872 completednot on this mapstarted 2019, after this paper: background citation

Retrospective Study on the Clinical Outcomes of the Aseptic Pseudarthrosis Treatment of the Upper Limb

TypeobservationalSponsorIstituto Ortopedico RizzoliRan2019 to 2020Enrolled90ConditionsPseudarthrosisArmsbiological adjuvants, no biological adjuvants
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

55 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. New insights into the properties, functions, and aging of skeletal stem cells.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2023
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Gopal Shankar KrishnakumarNano-Biotechnology Laboratory, Rizzoli Orthopaedic Institute, Via di Barbiano 1/10, 40136, Bologna, Italy.
Alice RoffiNano-Biotechnology Laboratory, Rizzoli Orthopaedic Institute, Via di Barbiano 1/10, 40136, Bologna, Italy. alice.roffi@ior.it.ORCID 0000-0002-2683-3743
Davide RealeI Orthopaedic and Traumatologic Clinic, Rizzoli Orthopaedic Institute, Via Pupilli 1, 40136, Bologna, Italy.
Elizaveta KonKnee Joint Reconstruction Center - 3rd Orthopaedic Division, Humanitas Clinical Institute, Via Alessandro Manzoni 56, Rozzano, Italy.
Giuseppe FilardoNano-Biotechnology Laboratory, Rizzoli Orthopaedic Institute, Via di Barbiano 1/10, 40136, Bologna, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis paper documents the existing evidence on bone morphogenetic proteins (BMPs) use for the treatment of bone fractures, non-union, and osteonecrosis, through a review of the clinical literature, underlying potential and limitations in terms of cost effectiveness and risk of complications.

methodsA systematic review was performed on the PubMed database using the following string: (bone morphogenetic proteins OR BMPs) and (bone repair OR bone regeneration) including papers from 2000 to 2016. The search focused on clinical trials dealing with BMPs application to favor bone regeneration in bone fractures, non-union, and osteonecrosis, in English language, with level of evidence I, II, III, and IV. Relevant data (type of study, number of patients, BMPs delivery material, dose, site, follow-up, outcome, and adverse events) were extracted and analyzed.

resultsForty-four articles met the inclusion criteria: 10 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 7 comparative studies, 18 case series, and 9 case reports. rhBMP-2 was documented mainly for the treatment of fractures, and rhBMP-7 mainly for non-unions and osteonecrosis. Mixed results were found among RCTs and comparative papers: 11 reported positive results for BMPs augmentation, 3 obtained no significant effects, and 2 showed negative results. The only study comparing the two BMPs showed a better outcome with rhBMP-2 for non-union treatment.

conclusionClinical evidence on BMPs use for the treatment of fractures, non-union, and osteonecrosis is still controversial, with the few available reports being mainly of low quality. While positive findings have been described in many studies, mixed results are still present in the literature in terms of efficacy and adverse events. The difficulties in drawing clear conclusions are also due to the studies heterogeneity, mainly in terms of different BMPs applied, with different concomitant treatments for each bone pathology. Therefore, further research with well-designed studies is needed in order to understand the real potential of this biological approach to favour bone healing.

Indexed as

Bone and BonesBone Morphogenetic ProteinsBone RegenerationFractures, BoneFractures, UnunitedHumansOsteonecrosisBone Morphogenetic ProteinsBMPsBoneFracturesNon-unionOsteonecrosis

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.