ArticleCartilage2026
The Use of Intra-Articular Hydrogel in Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review.
Article in Cartilage, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BackgroundKnee osteoarthritis (KOA) is a prevalent cause of disability. Current intra-articular injections (hyaluronic acid [HA] and corticosteroids) fall short in maintaining long-term effects and repeated usage may result in deleterious effects on the knee. The development of hydrogels offers a potentially safe and longer-lasting alternative.PurposeTo assess current literature and analyse the clinical outcomes of intra-articular hydrogel in patients with KOA.MethodsA systematic search on 4 databases was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta‑Analyses. Quantitative findings were complemented by narrative synthesis. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias (RoB) 2.0 tool and Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies guidelines.ResultsTwelve studies comprising 1,413 patients were included. Most reported improvements in clinical outcomes above the minimal clinically important difference. Average follow-up was 11 months. Quality assessment revealed high risk of bias for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (
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.