ReviewTissue engineering and regenerative medicine2025
Bone Marrow Aspiration Concentrate in the Treatment of Osteoarthritis: A Review of its Current Clinical Application.
Review in Tissue engineering and regenerative medicine, 2025. 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.
- Considerations in modern regenerative medicine for osteoarthritis.EFORT open reviews · 2025Article
- Beyond the Surface: Nutritional Interventions Integrated with Diagnostic Imaging Tools to Target and Preserve Cartilage Integrity: A Narrative Review.Biomedicines · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundBone marrow aspiration concentrate (BMAC) has gained acceptance as a safe orthobiologic for treating osteoarthritis (OA), despite lacking robust supporting evidence. Although several publications have documented the use of BMAC in OA, evidence confirming its unequivocal efficacy remains limited.
methodsThis review aims to summarize the current clinical evidence regarding BMAC as a therapeutic for OA, while also presenting the author's perspective. Sixteen studies were reviewed, including ten randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and six cohort studies.
resultsFrom the review of existing literature, BMAC injections do not appear to significantly improve pain and function compared to conventional therapies such as hyaluronic acid and corticosteroids, although some studies report a longer duration of effectiveness. Furthermore, the evidence for structural improvement, which was the original rationale for cell therapy, is seldom reported.
conclusionIn light of these findings, it is suggested that high-quality data from a large patient cohort is needed to determine the role of BMAC injections in OA treatment and address reimbursement issues. From the author's perspective, the introduction of a national registry system that provides valuable information on the cost-effectiveness of various orthopedic procedures may offer a solution.
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.