SynthesisFrontiers in surgery2026
Efficacy and safety of bone marrow aspirate and bone marrow aspirate concentrate in orthopedic conditions: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Frontiers in surgery, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Bone marrow aspirate (BMA) and bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMAC) have emerged as autologous orthobiologic strategies aimed at modulating inflammation and promoting tissue repair in orthopedic conditions. However, evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) remains heterogeneous, and their clinical role relative to established treatments is still debated. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the efficacy, structural effects, and safety of BMA and BMAC in adults with orthopedic conditions based exclusively on RCT evidence. Methods: A systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA 2020 guidelines. PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched from December 2015 to December 2025. Eligible studies were RCTs comparing BMA or BMAC with placebo, conventional injective therapies, exercise therapy, or standard surgical procedures. Outcomes included pain, functional performance, imaging-based structural healing, treatment failure or revision, and safety. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool, and results were synthesized narratively. Results: Twenty-one RCTs involving knee osteoarthritis, ACL injury or reconstruction, rotator cuff tears, focal cartilage defects, osteonecrosis, discogenic low back pain, and glenohumeral osteoarthritis were included. Across trials, BMA/BMAC was generally associated with improvements in pain and function, although superiority over comparators was inconsistent and depended on the clinical condition and treatment strategy. Discussion: Signals of greater benefit were observed in selected patients with early-stage knee osteoarthritis, focal cartilage pathology, nonsurgical ligament injuries, and rotator cuff disorders. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251241519, identifier CRD420251241519.
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.