Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36653802›Full record

Trial reportTrials2023

Restoring Study PRGF: a randomized clinical trial on plasma rich in growth factors for knee osteoarthritis.

Luis Carlos Saiz, Juan Erviti, Leire Leache, Marta Gutiérrez-Valencia

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Trials, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Six solutions for clinical study data sharing in Germany.BMC medical research methodology · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Luis Carlos SaizUnit of Innovation and Organization, Navarre Health Service, Pamplona, Spain. lsaizfer@navarra.es.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9143-5709
Juan ErvitiUnit of Innovation and Organization, Navarre Health Service, Pamplona, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3396-2102
Leire LeacheUnit of Innovation and Organization, Navarre Health Service, Pamplona, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2272-7086
Marta Gutiérrez-ValenciaUnit of Innovation and Organization, Navarre Health Service, Pamplona, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3229-6614
Navarre Institute of Health Research · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA randomized clinical trial assessing plasma rich in growth factors (PRGF) versus hyaluronic acid for knee osteoarthritis was published in 2012 (sponsor trial ID BTI-01-EC/07/ART). Evidence of misreporting was discovered following access to unpublished materials. In accordance with the principles of the Restoring Invisible and Abandoned Trials (RIAT) initiative, we sought to re-analyse Study PRGF based on the unpublished trial materials.

methodsReanalysis was made possible primarily based on two unpublished study documents (original trial protocol and final report) obtained from the authors of the original publication. A call to action, calling on the authors to correct the original publication, was publicly issued. The involved ethics committee was repeatedly approached and extensive discussion with the authors ensued. After no agreement to correct the paper was reached, we embarked on this restoration. Reanalysis was focused on providing updated analyses for efficacy and safety.

resultsThe efficacy of PRGF was not statistically different from hyaluronic acid for any prespecified primary or secondary efficacy outcomes. For the primary endpoint, the percent of patients on PRGF compared to hyaluronic acid with a decrease >40% in WOMAC pain subscale score was 5.4% higher; 95% confidence interval (CI) -10.4% to 21.3%; p = 0.505. This differs from the original publication that reported a non-prespecified primary endpoint (decrease >50% in WOMAC pain subscale score) which was 14.1% higher; 95% CI 0.5 to 27.6%; p=0.044. Furthermore, in contrast to the article statement that all the adverse events disappeared in 48 h, at least two patients in the hyaluronic arm and five patients in the PRGF arm reported persistent adverse events. Inadequate disclosure of conflicts of interest in the original publication was also noted.

conclusionsThis reanalysis of Study PRGF found no clinically or statistically significant benefit from PRGF compared to hyaluronic acid. The restoration of Study PRGF shows the urgency of important changes to trial reporting and oversight practices. In the future, timely access to all clinical trial documents is needed to minimize the risk of reporting bias. Similarly, ethics committees should be ready to intervene whenever a case of potential misconduct arises.

trial registrationThis is a RIAT project, whose original trial was approved and registered on 19 December 2007 by the Ethics Committee of the Basque Country, Spain, as BTI-01-EC/07/ART.

Indexed as

Osteoarthritis, KneePlatelet-Rich PlasmaHumansHyaluronic AcidInjections, Intra-ArticularIntercellular Signaling Peptides and ProteinsPainPlasmaTreatment OutcomeHyaluronic AcidIntercellular Signaling Peptides and ProteinsKnee osteoarthritisPlasma rich in growth factorPlatelet-rich plasmaResearch integrityRestoring Invisible & Abandoned Trials (RIAT)Transparency

Identifiers

PMID36653802
PMCPMC9850713
OpenAlexW4317214836

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.