SynthesisJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2026
Leukocyte-rich versus leukocyte-poor platelet-rich plasma and hyaluronic acid for knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2026. 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.
- Human BMP4 mRNA Encapsulated in Lipid Nanoparticle for Bone and Articular Cartilage Repair in Aged Mice.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
- Platelet-rich plasma in cartilage repair: biological mechanisms and clinical perspectives.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the comparative efficacy and safety of leukocyte-rich platelet-rich plasma (L-PRP), leukocyte-poor platelet-rich plasma (LP-PRP), hyaluronic acid (HA), and placebo for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis (KOA).
designSystematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). DATA SOURCES: A comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Web of Science was conducted from inception to October 2025, without language restrictions. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: We included RCTs that compared at least two of the following interventions in patients with KOA: L-PRP, LP-PRP, HA, or placebo. The primary outcome was functional improvement measured by the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC). Secondary outcomes were pain reduction and the incidence of short-term adverse events.
resultsTwenty-one RCTs, comprising 2,254 patients, were included. The network meta-analysis demonstrated that for functional improvement at 6-12 months, both L-PRP (Mean Difference [MD] vs. placebo: -13.20; 95% Confidence Interval [CI]: -20.80 to -5.60) and LP-PRP (MD: -10.54; 95% CI: -18.37 to -2.71) were significantly superior to placebo. Both were also superior to HA. According to P-score rankings, LP-PRP was the most effective treatment for function (0.96), followed by L-PRP (0.82). However, the direct comparison between LP-PRP and L-PRP showed no statistically significant difference in efficacy. For pain reduction, all active treatments were superior to placebo. While L-PRP was associated with a higher incidence of transient local adverse events, the data were inconsistently reported. Sensitivity analyses confined to studies with a low risk of bias confirmed the robustness of these findings.
conclusionIntra-articular PRP provides clinically significant functional improvement and pain relief for patients with KOA, with an efficacy superior to that of HA. Both L-PRP and LP-PRP are effective treatment options with comparable efficacy based on current evidence. Although qualitative trends suggest a potentially better safety profile for LP-PRP, robust data are lacking. Therefore, there is insufficient evidence to recommend one PRP formulation over the other.
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.