ArticleIndian journal of orthopaedics2024
Is There a Need for an Exogenous Activator Along with PRP for Early Knee Osteoarthritis? A Triple-Blinded Randomized Control Trial.
Article in Indian journal of orthopaedics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of Conventional Dose Versus Superdose Platelet-Rich Plasma for Knee Osteoarthritis: Response.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2025Article
- Increasing PRP Injection Volume to Target Super- Dose of Platelets for Knee Osteoarthritis: Response.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2024Article
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
Background: In addition to other variables associated with PRP injections for Knee Osteoarthritis (OA), some confusion exists about the role of exogenous activators. The current study looks at matched groups getting PRP injections with or without activator (Calcium gluconate) in early knee OA patients. Methods: Patients of early OA knee meeting inclusion criteria were randomly divided into 2 groups; Group A (43 patients) received 8 ml PRP injection alone, and Group B (48 patients) received 8 ml PRP along with 2 ml Calcium gluconate as activator. The patients were evaluated at baseline, 6 weeks, 3 months and 6 months for WOMAC Pain and Total WOMAC scores; secondary variables assessed were VAS score and patient satisfaction. Results: The baseline characteristics of both groups were comparable. Leucocyte-depleted PRP with 5 times concentration and average absolute platelet numbers of 7.144 billion per knee was injected. Mean Pain WOMAC scores decreased in both groups from baseline (group A-8.68, group B-9.09) to final follow-up (group A-4.67, group B-5.11). Similarly, Mean Total WOMAC scores decreased from baseline (group A-37.81, group B-37.41) to (group A-21, group B-21.36) at the final follow-up in both groups. There was no significant difference between both groups, and both showed similar trends. Similar findings were noted for VAS scores. Patient satisfaction was also not different (group A, 90.69%, group B, 89.58%) at the end of 6 months. Conclusion: Our study concluded doubtful role of adding exogenous activator to PRP preparation. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s43465-024-01159-7.
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.