ArticleRevista brasileira de ortopedia2026
[Viscosupplementation with High Molecular Weight Hyaluronic Acid for Hip Osteoarthritis: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials].
Article in Revista brasileira de ortopedia, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of high molecular weight hyaluronic acid (HMWHA) versus other therapies for hip osteoarthritis (OA) management. Methods: The present systematic review and meta-analysis followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing HMWHA versus other therapies (corticosteroids, platelet-rich plasma, saline, or low molecular weight hyaluronic acid) for hip OA treatment were included. Mean differences (MDs) or standardized mean differences (SMDs) were calculated for continuous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: Four RCTs were included, involving 823 patients with hip OA, of whom 408 (49.5%) were treated with HMWHA. The mean age of the patients was 60.1 (±10.21) years. No significant differences were observed between groups for pain (SMD -0.30 points; 95% CI -1.60 to 0.99), Lequesne index (MD 1.30 points; 95% CI -8.83 to 11.44), WOMAC total (MD -9.26 points; 95% CI -51.33 to 32.56), WOMAC stiffness (MD -0.93 points; 95% CI -12.30 to 10.45), WOMAC physical function (MD -0.15 points; 95% CI -7.24 to 7.60), and patient global self-assessment (MD -1.95 points; 95% CI -27.49 to 23.59). Conclusion: No significant differences were observed between HMWHA and other treatments regarding pain relief and functional recovery in patients with hip OA. However, further high-quality RCTs are needed to evaluate the HMWHA in the treatment of hip OA.
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.