Skip to main content

Table 1 Basic characteristics of included studies

From: The temporal effect of platelet-rich plasma on pain and physical function in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

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 +
  1. NR not reported, VAS visual analogue scale, IKDC international knee documentation committee, KOOS knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score, EQ-VAS EuroQol VAS, ROM range of motion, CS corticosteroids, PRP/S single-PRP injection followed by saline injections, EUROQOL European quality of life scale, PRP 1 single-PRP injections, PRP 2 twice PRP injections, KQoL knee quality of life, SF-36 short-form 36, NRS numeric rating scale
  2. a+ comparison results favored PRP treatment; – comparison results did not favor PRP treatment
  3. bThe specific number of patients in each group was not described after randomization