SynthesisClinical rheumatology2025
Efficacy and safety of biological products in hip osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Clinical rheumatology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis systematic review aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of various biological products, such as platelet-rich plasma (PRP), hyaluronic acid (HA), and combination treatments, in alleviating pain and improving function in patients with hip osteoarthritis (OA).
methodsOur review followed the PRISMA guidelines. Literature was searched in PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, and CENTRAL Cochrane databases from the beginning until July 2022 hinged upon the previously designed search strings, and citations were downloaded. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving patients over 18 years old with hip OA, comparing biological products to placebo or other interventions. Data were collected on pain, hip range of motion, functional status, quality of life, and radiological outcomes. Meta-analysis was done on the above-listed outcomes.
resultsFrom 18 RCTs involving 1648 patients, we analyzed the efficacy of various biological products. The mean age of patients was 60.2 years (SD 2.4), and the mean follow-up period was 7.22 months. PRP and HA treatments showed no statistically significant differences in VAS scores in the short-term (SMD = - 0.49, 95% CI, - 1.34-0.36), mid-term (SMD = - 0.25, 95% CI - 1.64-1.15), and long-term (SMD = - 0.22, 95% CI - 1.57-1.12) follow-ups. However, significant differences were found in WOMAC pain short-term (SMD = 0.40, 95% CI - 0.06-0.87), mid-term (SMD = 0.49, 95% CI - 0.85-1.83), and long-term outcomes (SMD = - 0.42, 95% CI - 0.80 to - 0.04). Complications were observed in HA (8%), Hylan G-F (4.9%), and GP-C (50%) groups, while PRP and BCC did not report any complications.
conclusionOur meta-analysis indicates that biological products, particularly PRP and HA, provide varying degrees of pain relief and functional improvement in hip OA patients, with a generally acceptable safety profile. The significant heterogeneity among studies underscores the need for further research to establish standardized treatment protocols and long-term efficacy.
trial registrationCRD42022312562.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39976796What 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.