Table 1 Number of systematic reviews or meta-analyses actually cited compared with maximum number that could possibly have been cited, and the rationale for repeating the systematic review or meta-analyses
From: Intra-articular platelet-rich plasma injection for knee osteoarthritis: a summary of meta-analyses
| Â | Date of publication | Date of last literature search | Possible to cite* | Cited# | Cochrane or PROSPERO register | Rationale for repeating meta-analysis as extracted from article |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Kanchanatawan et al. | 19 Sep. 2015 | 13 Aug. 2015 | 10 | 7 | – | All of the meta-analyses did not strictly pool outcomes from studies of high methodological quality (RCTs) as there were very few RCTs available for review at the time. Sources of heterogeneity were also not assessed. Additional RCTs have since been published. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing clinical outcomes when treating KOA by PRP injection as compared to HA or placebo. |
Dai et al. | 22 Sep. 2016 | 30 Apr. 2016 | 12 | 4 | – | To date, PRP-preparation techniques, platelet count, number of injections, the use of anticoagulants, activating agents, and severity of OA have varied considerably among studies. Studies reporting the effect of PRP injection in patients with knee OA convey conflicting results. In addition, because of small sample sizes, these studies were not powered adequately to detect the effect of PRP for patients with knee OA. |
Xu et al. | 11 Nov. 2017 | 13 May 2016 | 13 | 4 | – | Previous systematic reviews conducted on the viability of PRP and HA came to the unanimous conclusion that PRP was more effective than HA, but the reliability of this conclusion was more or less affected by inappropriate study selection strategies, incorrect statistical methods, and/or a limitation in the number of included trials. Recently, several new high-quality RCTs had turned out results that are in contrast with those of the previous RCTs and reviews. |
Shen et al. | 16 Dec. 2017 | 15 Nov. 2016 | 15 | 11 | + | Considering that prior reviews either included non-RCTs or only synthesized a small number of RCTs (less than 9) for analysis and that quite a few more RCTs recently have been published, we believe that it is necessary to perform an updated systematic review and meta-analysis, if appropriate, to evaluate whether the evidence-based support for PRP treatment will be strengthened or compromised. |