Advertisement
Table 1 Basic characteristics of included studies
| Studies | Country | Sample size |
Age (years) Mean ± SD | % female | Body mass index (kg/m2) | Outcome measurement | Follow-up | Dropout | Risk of bias | Conclusiona |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cerza et al.[9] |
Single centre Italy |
PRP 60 HA 60 |
PRP 66.5 ± 11.3 HA 66.2 ± 10.6 |
PRP 58% HA 53% | NR | WOMAC total scores, adverse events | 4, 12, 24 weeks |
PRP 0 HA 0 | High | + |
| Duymus et al.[29] |
Single centre Turkey |
PRP 41 HA 40 Ozone 39 |
PRP 60.4 ± 5.1 HA 60.3 ± 9.1 Ozone 59.4 ± 5.7 |
PRP 97% HA 97.1% Ozone 88.6% |
PRP 27.6 ± 4.6 HA 28.4 ± 3.6 Ozone 27.6 ± 4.4 | VAS, WOMAC scores | 1, 3, 6, 12 months |
PRP 8 HA 6 Ozone 4 | High | + |
| Filardo et al.[17] |
Single centre Italy |
PRP 96 HA 96 |
PRP 53.3 ± 13.2 HA 57.6 ± 11.8 |
PRP 36.2% HA 41.6% |
PRP 26.6 ± 4.0 HA 26.9 ± 4.4 | IKDC subjective, KOOS, EQ-VAS, Tegner score, ROM, Transpatellar circumference, patient satisfaction, adverse events | 2, 6, 12 months |
PRP 2 HA 7 | Moderate | – |
| Forogh et al.[30] |
Single centre Iran | 41 in totalb |
PRP 59.1 ± 7.0 CS 61.1 ± 6.7 |
PRP 70.8% CS 62.5% |
PRP 28.9 ± 2.8 CS 29.2 ± 3.4 | KOOS, VAS, ROM, 20 meters walk test, patient satisfaction | 2, 6 months |
PRP 1 CS 6 | High | + |
| Görmeli et al.[31] |
Single centre Turkey |
PRP 46 PRP/S 45 HA 46 Placebo 45 |
PRP 53.7 ± 13.1 PRP/S 53.8 ± 13.4 HA 53.5 ± 14 Placebo 52.8 ± 12.8 |
PRP 58.9% PRP/S 56.8% HA 56.4% Placebo 50% |
PRP 28.7 ± 4.8 PRP/S 28.4 ± 4.4 HA 29.7 ± 3.7 Placebo 29.5 ± 3.2 | EQ-VAS, IKDC subjective, patient satisfaction | 6 months |
PRP 7 PRP/S 1 HA 7 Placebo 5 | High | + |
| Li et al.[10] |
Single centre China |
PRP 15 HA 15 |
PRP 57.6 HA 58.2 |
PRP 60% HA 53.3% |
PRP 24.3 HA 24 | IKDC, WOMAC total score, Lequesne index, adverse events | 3, 4, 6 months |
PRP 0 HA 0 | High | + |
| Montañez-Heredia et al.[35] |
Single centre Spain |
PRP 28 HA 27 |
PRP 66.3 ± 8.3 HA 61.5 ± 8.6 |
PRP 55.6% HA 65.4% |
PRP 29.0 ± 5.5 HA 30.4 ± 4.9 | VAS, KOOS, EUROQOL, adverse events | 3, 6 months |
PRP 1 HA 1 | High | + |
| Patel et al.[11] |
Single centre India |
PRP1 27 PRP2 25 Placebo 26 |
PRP1 53.1 ± 11.6 PRP2 51.6 ± 9.2 Placebo 53.7 ± 8.2 |
PRP1 59% PRP2 80% Placebo 73.9% |
PRP1 25.8 ± 3.3 PRP2 25.8 ± 3.3 Placebo 26.2 ± 2.9 | WOMAC score, VAS, patient satisfaction, adverse events | 6 weeks, 3, 6 months |
PRP1 1 PRP2 0 Placebo 3 | High | + |
| Paterson et al.[32] |
Single centre Australia |
PRP 12 HA 11 |
PRP 49.9 ± 13.7 HA 52.7 ± 10.3 |
PRP 27.3% HA 30% |
PRP 27.9 ± 11.9 HA 30.9 ± 5.6 | VAS, KOOS, KQoL, Functional tests, adverse events | 4, 12 weeks |
PRP 2 HA 2 | Moderate | – |
| Raeissadat et al.[33] |
Single centre Iran |
PRP 87 HA 73 |
PRP 56.9 ± 9.1 HA 61.1 ± 7.5 |
PRP 89.6% HA 75.8% |
PRP 28.2 ± 4.6 HA 27.0 ± 4.2 | WOMAC total score, SF-36 | 52 weeks |
PRP 10 HA 11 | High | + |
| Sánchez et al.[13] |
Multi-centre Spain |
PRP 89 HA 87 |
PRP 60.5 ± 7.9 HA 58.9 ± 8.2 |
PRP 52% HA 52% |
PRP 27.9 ± 2.9 HA 28.2 ± 2.7 | Normalized WOMAC score, Lequesne index, adverse events | 6 months |
PRP 10 HA 13 | Moderate | + |
| Smith et al.[34] |
Single centre USA |
PRP 15 Placebo 15 |
PRP 53.5 ± 8.2 Placebo 46.6 ± 9.4 |
PRP 66.7% Placebo 60% |
PRP 29.5 ± 6.9 Placebo 27.5 ± 4.8 | WOMAC score, adverse events | 1, 2 weeks, 2, 3, 6, 12 months |
PRP 0 Placebo 0 | Moderate | + |
| Spaková et al.[14] |
Single centre Slovakia |
PRP 60 HA 60 |
PRP 52.8 ± 12.4 HA 53.2 ± 14.5 |
PRP 45% HA 48.3% |
PRP 27.9 ± 4.1 HA 28.3 ± 4.0 | WOMAC total score, NRS, adverse events | 3, 6 months |
PRP 0 HA 0 | High | + |
| Vaquerizo et al.[15] |
Multi-centre Spain |
PRP 48 HA 48 |
PRP 62.4 ± 6.6 HA 64.8 ± 7.7 |
PRP 66.7% HA 54.2% |
PRP 30.7 ± 3.6 HA 31.0 ± 4.6 | WOMAC score, Lequesne index, adverse events | 24, 48 weeks |
PRP 0 HA 6 | High | + |
