ReviewJournal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma
Quality assurance and adverse event management in regenerative medicine for knee osteoarthritis: Current concepts.
Review in Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The Ethical Implications of Tissue Engineering for Regenerative Purposes: A Systematic Review.Tissue engineering. Part B, Reviews · 2023Pooled it
- Assessment of safety and efficacy of intra-articular injection of stromal vascular fraction for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis-a systematic review.International orthopaedics · 2021Pooled it
- Considerations in modern regenerative medicine for osteoarthritis.EFORT open reviews · 2025Article
- Current Non-Surgical Curative Regenerative Therapies for Knee Osteoarthritis.Stem cell reviews and reports · 2024Review
- Patient registries in orthopedics and orthobiologic procedures: a narrative review.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2022Review
- Two-year clinical outcomes of autologous microfragmented adipose tissue in elderly patients with knee osteoarthritis: a multi-centric, international study.International orthopaedics · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The economic and human cost of knee osteoarthritis is forecast to increase. This will impact not only aging individuals, but also the working age members of emerging economies. The current treatment pathways are often costly, time-consuming, and insufficient to manage the degeneration of the knee over the ever-increasing lifespan of patients around the world. In response to the shortcomings of a focus on symptom management, international and high-impact regulators, researchers, clinicians, and most importantly patients, are increasingly interested in the possible management of knee osteoarthritis with novel therapies in the field of regenerative medicine treatments. Regenerative medicine is an emerging discipline whose adherents aim to use the tools of the human body to address underlying dysfunction, leading to lasting repair of damaged tissues and structures. The evidence base lacks consensus on issues related to safety, efficacy, cost-efficiency, and treatment specifications. In this current concepts review, we describe the potential impact of regenerative medicine for knee osteoarthritis and evaluate literature of the past decade for elements related to the quality of clinical research. Finally, we discuss strategies for improving the evidence base for the future. The results of the review reveal that the typical follow-up period for most clinical research into the area is between 6 and 12 months; local ethics board approval is commonly reported, and that Platelet-Rich Plasma is the most common option explored. However, several quality elements were lacking in this cohort of recent literature: cost efficacy data, long-term follow-up, and detailed adverse event reporting. In order to address these weaknesses in the literature, patient outcomes registries are needed, in order to satisfy the need for longer follow-up for individuals receiving regenerative treatments, in addition to further clinical trials which address larger and more diverse patient populations. Transparency will be of utmost importance in further research and clinical translation of regenerative medicine for knee osteoarthritis.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.