Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40459170›Full record

ArticleEFORT open reviews2025

Evidence-based guidelines on orthobiologics.

Tobias Winkler, Stephan Oehme, Alexander Hildebrandt, Azzurra Paolucci, Lorenz Pichler

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EFORT open reviews, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. 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

5 authors.

Tobias WinklerCharité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Center for Musculoskeletal Surgery (CMSC), Berlin, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0727-4680
Stephan OehmeCharité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Center for Musculoskeletal Surgery (CMSC), Berlin, Germany.
Alexander HildebrandtCharité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Center for Musculoskeletal Surgery (CMSC), Berlin, Germany.
Azzurra PaolucciCharité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Center for Musculoskeletal Surgery (CMSC), Berlin, Germany.
Lorenz PichlerCharité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Center for Musculoskeletal Surgery (CMSC), Berlin, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9848-778X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Orthobiologics (OBs) have seen a constant increase in the number of available therapies and their clinical applications. Existing therapies can be categorized into blood-based (e.g., platelet-rich plasma (PRP)) and tissue/cell-based (e.g. mesenchymal stromal cells) approaches. While the popularity of OBs continues to grow, their diverse natures create unique challenges for the establishment of evidence-based guidelines. PRP has been reported by meta-analyses to increase patient-reported outcomes for conditions such as knee osteoarthritis (KOA), lateral epicondylitis and plantar fasciitis. However, the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) included often exhibit a high risk of bias due to the heterogeneity in the PRP preparation protocols and accompanying measures as well as inconsistent trial quality. The development pipeline of cell/tissue-based therapies is typically longer and more cost-intensive than that of blood-based therapies. Nevertheless, several products have demonstrated clinical safety. While some RCTs and meta-analyses on the outcome of cell/tissue-based therapies exist, their number is considerably lower than that of blood-based therapies and they focus mainly on KOA, with limited evidence on other orthopedic indications. Orthopedic societies such as ESSKA and AAOS have taken on the challenge of developing guidelines for OBs by combining high-level synthesized evidence with expert consensus. Patient stratification strategies represent a promising key to unlocking the full potential of OBs and are currently being investigated in ongoing studies. Further efforts to establish guidelines for the use of OBs should focus on developing frameworks for clinical trials and their reporting, alongside standardized protocols for the preparation, application and accompanying measures of OB therapies.

Indexed as

Advanced TherapiesOrthobiologicsRegenerative Therapies

Identifiers

PMID40459170
PMCPMC12139597

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.