ReviewCureus2023
The Efficacy and Safety of Intra-articular Low Molecular Weight Fraction of Human Serum Albumin for the Management of Moderate to Moderately Severe Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Serum Albumin Role as a Prognostic Biomarker of Radiological Gonarthrosis Progression: A Retrospective Cross-sectional Study.Indian journal of orthopaedics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Osteoarthritis is a chronic degenerative joint disease that affects weight-bearing joints. Low molecular weight fraction of 5% (LMWF-5A) human serum albumin is an intra-articular injection that emerged for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis. The aim of this review is to assess the efficacy and safety of LMWF-5A versus placebo through a systematic review and meta-analysis. The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), EBSCO, and ClinicalTrials.gov registry databases were utilized to search for studies. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the efficacy of LMWF-5A versus placebo were included. Efficacy endpoints were represented by Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) A and C scores for pain and function, respectively. Serious adverse events (SAEs), non-serious adverse events (NSAEs), and mortality rates were used to evaluate the safety of the drug. The revised Cochrane risk of bias tool was used for the risk of bias assessment. Seven RCTs (n=2939) that met the inclusion criteria were included. The meta-analysis did not find significant improvement in pain (WOMAC A) (standardized mean difference (SMD)= -0.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.10 - 0.09, P=0.87, I²=30%). Additionally, no significant change in function was noted (WOMAC C) (SMD=0.01, 95% CI -0.08 - 0.10, P=0.87, I²=22%). The pooled analysis did not find a significant difference between LMWF-5A and placebo regarding the incidence of joint swelling (P=0.84), joint stiffness (P=0.53), arthralgia (P=0.53), extremity pain (P=0.45), NSAEs (P=0.21), SAEs (P=0.92), or mortality (P=1.00). However, the subgroup analysis showed a significant reduction of 42% in NSAEs upon administration of 10 mL of LMWF-5A (risk ratio (RR)=0.58, 95% CI 0.35-0.97, P=0.04). In summary, our meta-analysis did not find significant differences between LMWF-5A and placebo regarding the incidence of NSAEs, SAEs, or mortality. On the other hand, LMWF-5A did not demonstrate superiority over saline in terms of efficacy. Therefore, it is not an effective drug for managing knee osteoarthritis.
Indexed as
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.