Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37071148›Full record

ReviewInternational orthopaedics2023

Orthobiologics: a review.

Andreas F Mavrogenis, Vasileios Karampikas, Alexandros Zikopoulos, Spyridon Sioutis, Dimitrios Mastrokalos, Dimitrios Koulalis, Marius M Scarlat, Philippe Hernigou

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in International orthopaedics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 3 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.

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

33 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Demographic Factors Affect the BMAC Proteome.Journal of proteome research · 2026
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

8 authors.

Andreas F MavrogenisFirst Department of OrthopaedicsNational and Kapodistrian University of Athens, School of Medicine, Athens, Greece. afm@otenet.gr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0807-0719
Vasileios KarampikasFirst Department of OrthopaedicsNational and Kapodistrian University of Athens, School of Medicine, Athens, Greece.
Alexandros ZikopoulosFirst Department of OrthopaedicsNational and Kapodistrian University of Athens, School of Medicine, Athens, Greece.
Spyridon SioutisFirst Department of OrthopaedicsNational and Kapodistrian University of Athens, School of Medicine, Athens, Greece.
Dimitrios MastrokalosFirst Department of OrthopaedicsNational and Kapodistrian University of Athens, School of Medicine, Athens, Greece.
Dimitrios KoulalisFirst Department of OrthopaedicsNational and Kapodistrian University of Athens, School of Medicine, Athens, Greece.
Marius M ScarlatClinique Chirurgicale St. Michel, Groupe ELSAN, Toulon, France.
Philippe HernigouHenri Mondor Hospital, University Paris, Créteil, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe use of biologic materials in orthopaedics (orthobiologics) has gained significant attention over the past years. To enhance the body of the related literature, this review article is aimed at summarizing these novel biologic therapies in orthopaedics and at discussing their multiple clinical implementations and outcomes.

methodsThis review of the literature presents the methods, clinical applications, impact, cost-effectiveness, and outcomes, as well as the current indications and future perspectives of orthobiologics, namely, platelet-rich plasma, mesenchymal stem cells, bone marrow aspirate concentrate, growth factors, and tissue engineering.

resultsCurrently available studies have used variable methods of research including biologic materials as well as patient populations and outcome measurements, therefore making comparison of studies difficult. Key features for the study and use of orthobiologics include minimal invasiveness, great healing potential, and reasonable cost as a nonoperative treatment option. Their clinical applications have been described for common orthopaedic pathologies such as osteoarthritis, articular cartilage defects, bone defects and fracture nonunions, ligament injuries, and tendinopathies.

conclusionsOrthobiologics-based therapies have shown noticeable clinical results at the short- and mid-term. It is crucial that these therapies remain effective and stable in the long term. The optimal design for a successful scaffold remains to be further determined.

Indexed as

Biological ProductsCartilage, ArticularCartilage DiseasesOsteoarthritisPlatelet-Rich PlasmaBiological TherapyHumansBiological ProductsBone marrow aspirate concentrateMesenchymal stem cellsOrthobiologicsPlatelet-rich plasmaScaffoldsTissue engineering

Identifiers

PMID37071148

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.