A Comprehensive Meta-Analysis of Orthobiologics in Arthrosis and Lumbar Degeneration: Moderate Symptomatic Benefit, Comparator-Dependent Effects and an Evidence-Tiered Framework for Clinical Practice

Márcio Hiroaki Kume¹*; Bianca Furlan²; Camila Gobatto Boaventura²; Mônica Andréa Probst²; Edson Peracchi²; Carmen Austrália Paredes Marcondes Ribas

doi:10.52793/JSCR.2026.7(3)-94

View PDF

A Comprehensive Meta-Analysis of Orthobiologics in Arthrosis and Lumbar Degeneration: Moderate Symptomatic Benefit, Comparator-Dependent Effects and an Evidence-Tiered Framework for Clinical Practice

Journal of Stem Cell Research | Volume 7, Issue 3 | August 2026

Márcio Hiroaki Kume¹*, Bianca Furlan², Camila Gobatto Boaventura², Mônica Andréa Probst², Edson Peracchi² and Carmen Austrália Paredes Marcondes Ribas³

¹Sugisawa Hospital, Department of Regenerative Medicine, Curitiba, Brazil

²CeUnina, Department of Biologic Science, Curitiba, Brazil

³Mackenzie University, Curitiba, Brazil

*Corresponding author: Márcio Hiroaki Kume, 80250-190, Iguassu Avenue, 1236, Sugisawa Hospital, Department of Regenerative Medicine, Curitiba, Brazil

Citation: Kume MH, Furlan B, Boaventura CG, Probst MA, Peracchi E, et al. A Comprehensive Meta-Analysis of Orthobiologics in Arthrosis and Lumbar Degeneration: Moderate Symptomatic Benefit, Comparator-Dependent Effects and an Evidence-Tiered Framework for Clinical Practice. J Stem Cell Res. 7(3):1-34.

Received: August 09,2026 | Published: August 23, 2026

Copyright^©2026 by Kume MH, et al. All rights reserved. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.52793/JSCR.2026.7(3)-94

Abstract

Background: Orthobiologic injections — platelet-rich plasma (PRP), bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMAC), adipose-derived and bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stromal cells (MSC), micro-fragmented adipose tissue (MFAT), stromal vascular fraction (SVF), autologous conditioned serum (ACS) and dextrose prolotherapy — are used across arthrosis and degenerative lumbar disease with a confidence that the aggregate evidence does not obviously support. We set out to quantify the effect precisely, to identify which parts of the evidence base are strong and which are not, and to convert that into a tiered framework a clinician can act on.

Methods: We conducted a three-stream synthesis. Stream 1 extracted arm-level continuous outcomes from 82 randomised controlled trials of orthobiologic injection in arthrosis (460 outcome rows). Stream 2 extracted 92 outcome rows from 24 clinical studies of orthobiologics in lumbar degeneration. Stream 3 assembled an umbrella layer of 63 systematic reviews and network meta-analyses contributing 192 pooled estimates. Every extracted value was bound to the URL of the document it was read from. Effects were expressed as Hedges g with negative values favouring the pooled by DerSimonian–Laird random effects with one pain-preferred estimate per study, and interrogated with subgroup analysis, meta-regression, leave-one-out analysis, cumulative meta-analysis, Egger and Begg tests and trim-and-fill.

Results: In arthrosis the pooled effect was moderate and stable across time: g = -0.44 (-0.77 to -0.12) at 3 months (k = 32, I² = 91%), -0.47 (-0.66 to -0.27) at 6 months (k = 43, I² = 83%, p = < 0.0001) and -0.53 (-0.78 to -0.27) at 12 months (k = 32, I² = 88%). The effect depended more on the control arm than on the product: against saline or sham g = -0.97 (-1.54 to -0.41) whereas against corticosteroid it was null (-0.29 (-0.79 to +0.20)). Adipose-derived products (-0.75 (-1.23 to -0.27), k = 9) and PRP (-0.46 (-0.73 to -0.19), k = 24) were significant, whereas bone marrow products were not (-0.07 (-0.49 to +0.35), p = 0.7396). Small-study asymmetry was strong (Egger p = 0.0011; Begg p = 0.00019), although trim-and-fill imputed no missing studies. In lumbar degeneration only 8 controlled comparisons were poolable at 6 months (g = -0.96 (-1.57 to -0.36), I² = 89%) and one at 12 months. Across the umbrella layer 116 of 172 numeric estimates (67%) were statistically significant, median reported I² was 56%, and structural endpoints showed no cartilage benefit.

Conclusions: Orthobiologics deliver a real but moderate symptomatic benefit in arthrosis that does not decay to 12 months, is largest against inert controls, is not demonstrably better than corticosteroid, and is not accompanied by structural repair. The lumbar evidence base remains too thin to support routine use outside registries and trials. We propose a three-tier framework that separates what is proven safe and effective from what is merely proven safe.

Keywords

Orthobiologics; Platelet-rich plasma; Mesenchymal stromal cells; Bone marrow aspirate concentrate; Osteoarthritis; Lumbar degenerative disc disease; Meta-analysis; Regenerative medicine.

Introduction

Orthobiologics occupy an unusual position in musculoskeletal medicine. They are widely offered, largely self-funded, biologically plausible and supported by a literature that is enormous in volume and modest in certainty. Degenerative joint disease and degenerative lumbar disease together account for a substantial share of chronic musculoskeletal disability, and both sit in a therapeutic gap: conservative care plateaus, surgery is definitive but irreversible, and the space between them has been filled by injectable autologous and allogeneic biological products.

The category is heterogeneous by construction. Platelet-rich plasma is a concentrated plasma fraction whose leukocyte content, platelet dose and activation state vary by an order of magnitude between preparations. Bone marrow aspirate concentrate delivers a mixed nucleated-cell population in which the mesenchymal fraction is a small minority. Adipose-derived products range from enzymatically digested stromal vascular fraction to mechanically micro-fragmented tissue that is not cell-selected at all. Culture-expanded mesenchymal stromal cells, umbilical-cord products, amniotic suspensions, autologous conditioned serum and hypertonic dextrose are grouped with them chiefly by route of administration rather than by mechanism. Treating this collection as a single intervention is a statistical convenience that clinical reasoning should resist.

Three questions matter for practice and are answerable from the published record. First, how large is the symptomatic benefit, and does it persist? Second, is the benefit a property of the biological product or of the comparison it is measured against — and how much of it survives blinding? Third, is there structural disease modification, or is the effect purely symptomatic? A fourth question follows from the answers: which specific indications and products have earned routine clinical use, which have earned use within registries, and which should still be confined to trials.

We therefore built a three-stream synthesis. Rather than restrict the analysis to a single product or a single joint, we extracted arm-level data from every randomised trial we could resolve in arthrosis, all controlled and uncontrolled clinical series we could resolve in lumbar degeneration, and an umbrella layer of 63 systematic reviews that allows the primary pooling to be checked against the published consensus. Every value in this paper is bound to the URL of the document it was read from, and the reference list of 244 entries is the complete set of those documents.

Methods

Design and reporting

This is a systematic review with three parallel quantitative streams, reported in accordance with PRISMA 2020. The protocol was not prospectively registered; a registration identifier is to be inserted prior to submission. Because all analysed data are previously published, ethical approval was not required.

Eligibility criteria

Stream 1 (arthrosis) included randomised controlled trials in which at least one arm received an intra-articular or peri-articular orthobiologic injection for degenerative joint disease of any joint, reporting a continuous pain or function outcome with a mean and a measure of dispersion at a defined follow-up. Stream 2 (lumbar degeneration) included randomised, quasi-randomised, prospective cohort and prospective single-arm studies of orthobiologic injection for discogenic low back pain, degenerative disc disease, lumbar radiculopathy or facet-mediated pain by any route. Stream 3 (umbrella) included systematic reviews, meta-analyses and network meta-analyses reporting at least one pooled quantitative estimate in either domain. Narrative reviews, case reports, surgical-augmentation studies without an injection arm and animal-only reports were excluded from the clinical streams; preclinical reviews were retained in the umbrella layer only for mechanistic context and were excluded from all pooled clinical estimates.

Data extraction and source binding

For every extracted row we recorded the study label, joint or spinal condition, modality, comparator, outcome instrument, follow-up in months, per-arm sample size, mean and standard deviation, study design, blinding status, and the source URL. Where a report gave a standard error, a 95% confidence interval or a change score rather than a final-value standard deviation, the row was flagged accordingly and the dispersion converted before pooling. Where a scale was oriented so that higher scores indicate better health (IKDC, KOOS, SF-36 physical component summary), the sign of the effect was reversed so that in all analyses a negative Hedges g favours the orthobiologic. Rows reporting medians with interquartile ranges, figure-only data or dispersion that could not be reconstructed were retained in the descriptive tables but excluded from pooling and are listed in the supplementary notes.

Statistical analysis

Effects were expressed as Hedges g with the small-sample correction applied to the standardised mean difference. To avoid within-study dependency, one estimate per study was carried into each pooled analysis, selected by a fixed preference hierarchy that favours the pain outcome, then function, then composite scores. Pooling used the DerSimonian–Laird random-effects estimator with inverse-variance weighting. Heterogeneity was quantified with Cochran Q, τ² and I², and each pooled estimate is accompanied by a 95% prediction interval, which describes the effect expected in a future comparable trial rather than the precision of the mean.

Pre-specified subgroup analyses at the 6-month timepoint examined orthobiologic class, comparator type, blinding status, completeness of product reporting and joint. Robustness was assessed with leave-one-out analysis across all 43 contributing trials, cumulative meta-analysis ordered by publication year, and random-effects meta-regression of effect size on the natural logarithm of total trial size. Small-study effects were tested with the Egger regression intercept and the Begg rank-correlation test, and the potential impact of missing studies estimated with the Duval and Tweedie trim-and-fill procedure. In the lumbar stream, 10 arm sizes not stated in the source report were imputed from the reported total randomised sample; no imputation was required in the arthrosis stream. All computation was performed in Python with independently implemented estimators rather than a packaged meta-analysis library, and the analysis script is available with the extracted data files.

Figure 1: Flow of evidence through the three synthesis streams. Counts are unique studies and extracted outcome rows before and after the poolability filters described in Section 2.3.

Results

Characteristics of the evidence base

The arthrosis stream comprised 82 randomised trials contributing 460 extractable outcome rows. The knee dominated (69 trials, 84% of the stream), followed by the hip (6), with single or near-single trials in the temporomandibular joint, shoulder, ankle, hand and lumbar facet joint. PRP and its leukocyte-defined variants accounted for 46 trials, adipose-derived products for 15, bone marrow products for 10, dextrose prolotherapy for 7, and umbilical-cord, amniotic, exosome and autologous conditioned serum products for one trial each. 45 trials were double-blind. Product characterisation was complete in 45 trials (55%), partial in 34, and absent in 3.

Orthobiologic product	Randomised trials	Outcome rows
PRP (unspecified leukocyte content)	37	190
Leukocyte-poor PRP	6	34
Leukocyte-rich PRP	3	19
Adipose-derived MSC	7	29
Micro-fragmented adipose tissue	6	40
Stromal vascular fraction	2	10
Bone marrow aspirate concentrate	6	40
Bone marrow-derived MSC (culture-expanded)	4	37
Hypertonic dextrose prolotherapy	7	33
Umbilical cord MSC	1	8
Amniotic suspension allograft	1	9
MSC-derived exosomes	1	5
Autologous conditioned serum	1	6
Total	82	460

Table 1: Composition of the arthrosis evidence stream by product class. Trials contributing more than one product arm are counted once per class.

The lumbar stream was markedly smaller and methodologically weaker: 24 studies, 92 outcome rows, of which 10 were prospective single-arm series and only 10 were randomised controlled trials. Intradiscal delivery predominated (16 studies) over transforaminal (3), epidural interlaminar (2) and intra-articular facet (1) routes. Discogenic low back pain was the commonest indication (10 studies), followed by degenerative disc disease (6) and radiculopathy (6). 11 studies had no control arm at all and were therefore excluded from every pooled estimate.

Indication	Studies	Delivery route	Studies
Discogenic low back pain	10	Intradiscal	16
Radiculopathy	6	Transforaminal	3
Degenerative disc disease	6	Other or not stated	2
Mixed	1	Epidural, interlaminar	2
Facet	1	Intra-articular facet	1

Table 2: Composition of the lumbar degeneration evidence stream. The two columns are independent cross-tabulations of the same 24 studies, not a paired breakdown.

Figure 2: Evidence volume by orthobiologic class in arthrosis (left) and by spinal indication in lumbar degeneration (right). The asymmetry between the two domains is the single most important structural feature of this literature.

Pooled effect in arthrosis

Across all products and comparators, orthobiologic injection produced a moderate reduction in pain and improvement in function that was statistically robust and did not attenuate over the first year. At 6 months, the timepoint with the largest contributing set, the pooled Hedges g was -0.47 (-0.66 to -0.27) (k = 43, p = < 0.0001). The 3-month and 12-month estimates were of similar magnitude, and the 12-month estimate was numerically the largest of the three. Heterogeneity was substantial to considerable at every timepoint (I² 83–91%), and the prediction intervals cross zero at all three timepoints — meaning that although the mean effect is reliably negative, a future trial drawn from this population could plausibly report no benefit.

Follow-up	k	Pooled Hedges g (95% CI)	p	I² (%)	τ²	95% prediction interval
3 months	32	-0.44 (-0.77 to -0.12)	0.0081	91.2	0.799	-2.30 to +1.41
6 months	43	-0.47 (-0.66 to -0.27)	< 0.0001	83.4	0.336	-1.64 to +0.71
12 months	32	-0.53 (-0.78 to -0.27)	< 0.0001	88.1	0.431	-1.89 to +0.84

Table 3: Random-effects pooled effect of orthobiologic injection versus comparator in arthrosis. Negative values favour the orthobiologic. One pain-preferred estimate per study.

Figure 3: Forest plot of all randomised comparisons contributing to the 6-month arthrosis estimate, ordered by effect size. Marker area is proportional to inverse-variance weight; teal denotes a confidence interval excluding the null. The diamond is the random-effects pooled estimate.

The effect depends more on the comparator than on the product

The most consequential finding of this analysis is not the size of the pooled effect but its dependence on the control arm. Against saline or sham injection, the pooled effect was large (-0.97 (-1.54 to -0.41), k = 10, p = 0.00075). Against hyaluronic acid it was small to moderate but precise and significant (-0.42 (-0.66 to -0.18), k = 11, I² = 59%, the lowest heterogeneity of any comparator subgroup). Against corticosteroid it was null (-0.29 (-0.79 to +0.20), p = 0.2451), and against other active biological comparators it was also null (-0.24 (-0.53 to +0.04), p = 0.0963). The saline-referenced effect is roughly four times the effect measured against an active comparator.

By product class, adipose-derived preparations produced the largest significant effect (-0.75 (-1.23 to -0.27), k = 9) and PRP a moderate one (-0.46 (-0.73 to -0.19), k = 24). Bone marrow products — BMAC and culture-expanded BM-MSC — showed no pooled benefit at 6 months (-0.07 (-0.49 to +0.35), k = 5, p = 0.7396). This is a genuinely negative result for the most invasive and most expensive product class in the category, and it is consistent with the recent randomised-only synthesis reporting that autologous BMAC and MSC did not outperform sham for primary pain and function endpoints in spondylosis [230].

Blinding mattered. Double-blind trials produced a larger pooled effect (-0.61 (-0.89 to -0.32), k = 25) than trials that were not double-blind (-0.30 (-0.56 to -0.03), k = 18) — the opposite of the usual direction, and almost certainly a confound: double-blind trials in this literature are overwhelmingly the placebo-controlled ones, so the blinding subgroup is partly a restatement of the comparator subgroup. Effects were similar in the knee (-0.45 (-0.67 to -0.24), k = 36) and in non-knee joints (-0.55 (-0.98 to -0.13), k = 7), and trials with complete product characterization reported slightly larger effects (-0.51 (-0.78 to -0.24)) than those with partial reporting (-0.39 (-0.66 to -0.12)).

Subgroup	k	Pooled Hedges g (95% CI)	p	I² (%)
By orthobiologic class
UC-MSC/amniotic	2	-0.77 (-2.81 to +1.27)	0.4608	91
Adipose	9	-0.75 (-1.23 to -0.27)	0.0024	87
PRP	24	-0.46 (-0.73 to -0.19)	0.0010	85
Other	2	-0.35 (-1.46 to +0.77)	0.5411	84
Bone marrow	5	-0.07 (-0.49 to +0.35)	0.7396	72
By comparator
Saline/sham	10	-0.97 (-1.54 to -0.41)	0.00075	88
Exercise/conservative	3	-0.44 (-2.38 to +1.49)	0.6527	96
Hyaluronic acid	11	-0.42 (-0.66 to -0.18)	0.00051	59
Corticosteroid	5	-0.29 (-0.79 to +0.20)	0.2451	72
Other active	14	-0.24 (-0.53 to +0.04)	0.0963	81
By blinding
Double-blind	25	-0.61 (-0.89 to -0.32)	< 0.0001	85
Not double-blind	18	-0.30 (-0.56 to -0.03)	0.0319	80
By joint
Knee	36	-0.45 (-0.67 to -0.24)	< 0.0001	85
Non-knee joints	7	-0.55 (-0.98 to -0.13)	0.0102	65
By completeness of product reporting
full	28	-0.51 (-0.78 to -0.24)	0.00020	86
partial	15	-0.39 (-0.66 to -0.12)	0.0045	75

Table 4: Subgroup analyses at the 6-month timepoint. Subgroups are not mutually exclusive across panels; each panel re-partitions the same 43 trials.

Figure 4: Subgroup estimates at 6 months by orthobiologic class (left) and control arm (right). Grey denotes a confidence interval crossing the null; the dotted vertical line is the overall pooled estimate.

Robustness, small-study effects and durability

The pooled estimate was insensitive to any single trial. Across all 43 leave-one-out iterations the pooled g ranged from -0.505 to -0.425 and remained statistically significant in every iteration. Cumulative meta-analysis ordered by year showed the estimate settling close to its final value early: by 2019 with only 5 trials the cumulative g was -0.57, against a final value of -0.47. Twelve subsequent years and 38 further trials narrowed the interval without moving the point estimate — the signature of a literature that is accumulating precision rather than resolving uncertainty about mechanism.

Small-study effects were unambiguous on formal testing. The Egger regression intercept was -3.675 (SE 1.048, t = -3.51, df = 41, p = 0.0011) and the Begg rank-correlation test gave τ = -0.395 (z = -3.74, p = 0.00019). Both indicate that smaller trials in this literature report systematically larger benefits. The Duval and Tweedie trim-and-fill procedure nevertheless imputed 0 missing studies and left the adjusted estimate unchanged at -0.468 (-0.664 to -0.273). We report this divergence rather than resolving it: trim-and-fill assumes asymmetry arises from suppression of null results in the right tail, and here the asymmetry is driven by an extreme left tail of small trials with very large effects, which the algorithm is not designed to correct. Meta-regression of effect size on log total sample size pointed the same way without reaching significance (β = +0.262, SE 0.153, t = 1.71, p = 0.0946, R² = 6.7%). At 12 months the asymmetry tests were borderline (Egger p = 0.0515; Begg p = 0.0517).

Durability was favourable. Among the 23 trials reporting both a 6-month and a 12-month outcome, the mean effect moved from -0.57 to -0.65 — no decay, and a slight deepening. This is one of the more clinically reassuring findings in the dataset and distinguishes orthobiologics from intra-articular corticosteroid, whose benefit is characteristically short-lived.

Analysis	Scope	Result	Interpretation
Leave-one-out analysis	43 iterations	g range -0.505 to -0.425	Significant in every iteration
Cumulative meta-analysis	43 trials by year	-0.57 by 2019 → -0.47 final	Estimate stable for over a decade
Egger regression (6 mo)	k = 43	intercept -3.68, t = -3.51, p = 0.0011	Strong small-study asymmetry
Begg rank correlation (6 mo)	k = 43	τ = -0.395, z = -3.74, p = 0.00019	Confirms asymmetry
Trim-and-fill (6 mo)	k = 43	0 studies imputed; adjusted g -0.468	No correction applied; see text
Meta-regression on log(n) (6 mo)	k = 43	β = +0.262, p = 0.0946, R² = 6.7%	Direction consistent, not significant
Egger regression (12 mo)	k = 32	intercept -2.58, p = 0.0515	Borderline
Durability, 6 vs 12 months	23 paired trials	mean g -0.57 → -0.65	No attenuation at one year

Table 5: Sensitivity, publication-bias and durability analyses for the arthrosis stream.

Figure 5: Funnel plot of the 6-month arthrosis comparisons. The shaded region is the pseudo 95% confidence region around the pooled estimate. The excess of small trials in the lower left is the source of the significant Egger and Begg statistics.

Figure 6: Cumulative random-effects meta-analysis of the 6-month arthrosis outcome, trials entered in order of publication year. The shaded band is the cumulative 95% confidence interval.

Figure 7: Left: pooled effect by blinding status and by control arm, showing that design choices move the measured effect more than product choices do. Right: paired 6-month and 12-month effects in the 23 trials reporting both, with the mean trajectory in dark teal.

Lumbar degeneration: a thin controlled evidence base

The lumbar stream cannot support the same analytic weight as the arthrosis stream, and the honest presentation of that limitation is itself a finding. Of 24 studies extracted, only 8 contributed a controlled comparison at 6 months and only one at 12 months. The 6-month pooled estimate was large (-0.96 (-1.57 to -0.36), p = 0.0019) but rests on a very small and heterogeneous set (I² = 89%, τ² = 0.647) whose prediction interval spans -3.07 to +1.15. The single controlled 12-month estimate, from the RESPINE allogeneic bone marrow MSC trial, was -0.29 (-0.56 to -0.01) [148] — far smaller than the 6-month pool and a reasonable reminder that early large effects in this domain have not generally been sustained.

Effects differed sharply by route. Epidural and perineural delivery produced the largest and least stable estimate (-1.34 (-2.50 to -0.18), k = 5, I² = 93%), whereas intradiscal delivery produced a smaller but far more consistent one (-0.50 (-0.87 to -0.12), k = 3, I² = 44%). By modality, PRP-family products drove the large epidural signal (-1.77 (-3.31 to -0.22), k = 4) while cell therapies produced a modest, homogeneous and significant effect (-0.34 (-0.62 to -0.06), k = 2, I² = 10%). Given that the epidural estimate rests on 5 studies with I² above 90%, the cell-therapy estimate is the more trustworthy of the two despite being the smaller.

Analysis	k	Pooled Hedges g (95% CI)	p	I² (%)
All controlled, 3 months	7	-0.74 (-1.26 to -0.23)	0.0049	84
All controlled, 6 months	8	-0.96 (-1.57 to -0.36)	0.0019	89
All controlled, 12 months	1	-0.29 (-0.56 to -0.01)	0.0401	n.a.
By route, 6 months
Epidural/perineural	5	-1.34 (-2.50 to -0.18)	0.0236	93
Intradiscal	3	-0.50 (-0.87 to -0.12)	0.0091	44
By modality, 6 months
PRP family	4	-1.77 (-3.31 to -0.22)	0.0250	93
Cell therapy	2	-0.34 (-0.62 to -0.06)	0.0168	10
Other	2	-0.38 (-1.22 to +0.46)	0.3765	82

Table 6: Pooled effects in lumbar degeneration, restricted to studies with a control arm. Single-arm series were excluded from all estimates.

Figure 8: Forest plots of the controlled lumbar comparisons at 3 months (left) and 6 months (right). The width of the individual intervals, rather than the position of the diamonds, is the message.

Umbrella layer: what the published syntheses report

To situate our primary pooling against the wider literature we extracted 192 pooled estimates from 63 systematic reviews, meta-analyses and network meta-analyses. Of the 172 estimates with a numeric point value, 116 (67%) were statistically significant and 128 favoured the orthobiologic against 10 favouring the comparator, with 54 null. That distribution is itself informative: a literature in which four fifths of pooled estimates are positive and almost none are negative is a literature in which the reporting filter is doing visible work.

Heterogeneity in the umbrella layer mirrored our own. Of the 63 estimates reporting I², the median was 56% and 48% exceeded 75%, the conventional threshold for considerable heterogeneity. Among the 75 estimates expressed as a standardised mean difference the median value was -0.20, consistent in magnitude with our own 6-month pooled estimate of -0.47. Among the 12 knee-OA estimates expressed as a mean difference in VAS pain the median was -2.88 points on a 0–100 or 0–10 scale depending on the review — a range so wide that the metric is not poolable across reviews.

Review	Comparison	Outcome	Metric	Pooled estimate (95% CI)	I² (%)
Xiong 2023	PRP vs control, mixed MSK	VAS pain	MD	-1.03 (-1.16 to -0.90)	87
Wu 2020	PRP vs hyaluronic acid, knee OA	WOMAC total	MD	-20.69 (-24.50 to -16.89)	94
Li 2025	PRP vs hyaluronic acid, knee OA, 12 mo	WOMAC pain	MD	-1.14 (-2.09 to -0.20)	n.a.
Du 2025	PRP + HA vs PRP alone, knee OA	WOMAC total	MD	-1.77 (-2.20 to -1.34)	10
Sadeghirad 2024	MSC vs control, knee OA, 6 mo	VAS pain	MD	-0.74 (-1.16 to -0.33)	n.a.
Wang 2020	MSC vs control, knee OA	WOMAC total	MD	-7.22 (-12.97 to -1.47)	n.a.
Xiao 2024	UC-MSC vs control, knee OA	WOMAC total	MD	-25.85 (-41.50 to -10.20)	n.a.
Cao 2025	MSC vs control, knee OA, 12 mo	WOMAC total	MD	+10.31 (+0.96 to +19.67)	n.a.
Wang 2022	Hypertonic dextrose vs control, knee OA, 6 mo	WOMAC total	MD	+13.77 (+6.75 to +20.78)	90
Sax 2022	PRP vs control, knee OA	MRI cartilage	SMD	-0.01 (-0.19 to +0.18)	n.a.
Kong 2024	MSC exosomes vs control, animal OA models	OARSI score	MD	-3.54 (-4.30 to -2.79)	98

Table 7: Representative pooled estimates from the umbrella layer, chosen to span product classes, directions of effect and levels of heterogeneity. Sign conventions follow each review as published; note that WOMAC-total estimates from Cao 2025 and Wang 2022 are reported on scales where a positive value favours the intervention. Full source citations: Xiong 2023 [181], Wu 2020 [185], Li 2025 [187], Du 2025 [183], Sadeghirad 2024 [193], Wang 2020 [200], Xiao 2024 [197], Cao 2025 [192], Wang 2022 [207], Sax 2022 [188], Kong 2024 [205].

Figure 9: Magnitude and direction of the pooled standardised mean differences reported across the umbrella layer, coloured by the direction each review itself reported. A small number of very large values are truncated at 2.9 for display.

Figure 10: Left: distribution of I² values reported by the systematic reviews, which is strikingly bimodal. Right: completeness of product characterisation across the 82 arthrosis trials.

Safety

Safety is the strongest part of the orthobiologic evidence base, and it is the reason a tiered framework is possible at all. The Cochrane review of stem-cell injection in knee OA found serious adverse events in 5 of 219 placebo recipients and 4 of 242 stem-cell recipients, risk ratio 0.72 (95% CI 0.20 to 2.64), I² = 0%, across 7 trials and 461 participants [194]. A pooled analysis of BMAC across 6 randomised trials and 860 patients found overall complication rates of 41.91% with BMAC versus 41.25% with comparators (p = 0.85), a number-needed-to-harm of 152, and no difference in early or late complications [203]. In 844 intra-articular culture-expanded BM-MSC procedures followed for a mean of 21 months, 4 serious adverse events occurred: one infection after marrow aspiration, one pulmonary embolism, and two tumours remote from the injection site adjudicated as unrelated [233].

The signal is not uniformly benign. A meta-analysis of 16 MSC trials in 807 patients reported a relative risk of 2.67 (95% CI 1.19 to 5.99) for any adverse event and 1.58 (95% CI 1.04 to 2.38) for knee pain or swelling, both at low certainty [193]. Network meta-analyses rank placebo as safest and adipose-derived MSC least favourably [199], and a dual network analysis assigned cell-based injections a 100% Bayesian probability of higher adverse-event rates than cell-free comparators [239]. In the lumbar domain the events that matter are procedural rather than biological: no discitis occurred in the randomised intradiscal BMAC trial, although the report cites three previously published post-procedural cases [157], and the randomised intradiscal BM-MSC trial recorded four serious adverse events in the treatment arm and three in the sham arm, none adjudicated as ectopic tissue growth [147]. Across the entire extracted literature we found no controlled signal for tumourigenesis or ectopic tissue formation attributable to an injected orthobiologic.

Source	Scope	Endpoint	Finding	Ref.
Cochrane, stem cells in knee OA	7 trials, 461 patients	Serious adverse events	RR 0.72 (0.20 to 2.64), I² = 0%	[194]
MSC in knee OA	16 trials, 807 patients	Any adverse event	RR 2.67 (1.19 to 5.99), low certainty	[193]
BMAC, pooled RCTs	6 trials, 860 patients	Overall complications	41.91% vs 41.25%, p = 0.85; NNH 152	[203]
Culture-expanded BM-MSC	8 studies, 844 procedures	Serious adverse events	4 events; 2 remote tumours judged unrelated	[233]
Network meta-analysis, knee OA	16 RCTs, 1005 patients	Adverse-event ranking	Placebo safest (P = 74.9); AD-MSC least favourable (P = 13.3)	[199]
Cell-based vs cell-free	Dual network meta-analysis	Adverse events	Bayesian probability 100% vs 0%; SUCRA 98.2% vs 1.8%	[239]
PRP + HA vs PRP alone	11 RCTs, 1023 patients	Adverse events	RR 0.41 (0.35 to 0.48), I² = 12%	[183]
Umbilical cord MSC	8 studies, 688 participants	Treatment-related events	No serious events; mild and transient	[196]
Hypertonic dextrose prolotherapy	5 studies, 319 patients	Severe adverse events	None reported in any included study	[207]
Autologous conditioned serum	5 RCTs, 741 patients	Complications	24.8% with ACS vs 24.4% with saline	[212]
Intradiscal MSC	7 RCTs	Adverse events, SAEs, mortality	No significant difference versus sham or placebo	[220]
Intradiscal BM-MSC, randomised	DREAM trial	Serious adverse events	4 in MSC arm vs 3 in sham; no ectopic growth	[147]

Table 8: Safety evidence across the orthobiologic category. Procedural adverse events dominate; no controlled tumourigenic or ectopic-growth signal was identified.

Structural and mechanistic endpoints

Symptomatic benefit is not accompanied by demonstrable structural repair. Pooled MRI cartilage thickness and structural change after PRP in knee OA gave a standardised mean difference of -0.01 (95% CI -0.19 to +0.18, p = 0.91) [188], and a separate synthesis reported a Hedges g of 0.079 (p = 0.723) for cartilage thickness across four studies and 0.217 (p = 0.281) for overall cartilage content across three randomised trials [189]. Pooled whole-organ MRI scores after stem-cell injection showed no significant difference from control across 16 studies and 875 patients [236], although cell-source subanalyses have reported imaging advantages for adipose over bone marrow sources at one year [234] and network ranking favours umbilical-cord products for whole-organ score improvement [198].

The most consequential mechanistic finding in the entire dataset is a partitioning analysis of intra-articular MSC injection in knee OA across 8 randomised trials and 467 patients, which attributed approximately 63% of pain reduction and 61% of functional improvement at 6 months to contextual, placebo-related factors rather than to the specific treatment effect, with corresponding figures of about 50% and 66% at 12 months [204]. Read alongside our own comparator subgroup analysis — where the effect against saline is roughly four times the effect against an active comparator — this converges on a coherent interpretation: a substantial proportion of the measured benefit of orthobiologic injection is attributable to the act of injecting, the procedural ritual surrounding it, and regression to the mean, rather than to the biological content of the syringe. Preclinical work with MSC-derived exosomes shows unambiguous histological and molecular cartilage protection in animal models [205,244], which makes the absence of a human structural signal a question about delivery, dose and residence time rather than about biology.

Source	Population	Endpoint	Finding	Ref.
Sax 2022	PRP, knee OA	MRI cartilage thickness or structure	SMD -0.01 (-0.19 to +0.18), p = 0.91	[188]
Prodromidis 2022	PRP, knee OA	Cartilage thickness (4 studies)	Hedges g 0.079, p = 0.723	[189]
Xie 2024	Stem cells, knee OA	Pooled WORMS (16 studies, 875 patients)	No significant difference versus control	[236]
Jeyaraman 2021	MSC by cell source	WORMS at 1 year	Favours AD-MSC (p < 0.001) over BM-MSC (p = 0.041)	[234]
Chen 2024	Network of MSC sources	WORMS ranking	UC-MSC best for WORMS (SUCRA 94.1%)	[198]
Yin 2025	MSC, knee OA (8 RCTs, 467 patients)	Contextual-effect partitioning	~63% of pain and 61% of function gain at 6 months attributable to contextual factors	[204]
Kong 2024	MSC exosomes, animal OA	OARSI histological score	MD -3.54 (-4.30 to -2.79), I² = 98%	[205]
Wang 2025	MSC exosomes, rat knee OA (28 studies)	Histology and molecular markers	Improved OARSI, Mankin, ICRS; collagen II and IL-10 up, IL-1β, IL-6, MMP-13, TNF-α down	[244]

Table 9: Structural, imaging and mechanistic endpoints. Human structural benefit is not demonstrated despite consistent preclinical cartilage protection.

An Evidence-Tiered Framework for Clinical Use

A tiered framework is only useful if the tiers are defined by something other than enthusiasm. We define them by two axes that the data above can actually populate: whether safety is established in controlled series, and whether efficacy is established against a clinically meaningful comparator rather than against saline. This produces three tiers with sharply different clinical implications.

Tier 1 — proven safety and robust efficacy evidence — contains leukocyte-defined PRP for knee osteoarthritis, where the pooled effect against hyaluronic acid is significant, precise and the least heterogeneous subgroup in the dataset (-0.42 (-0.66 to -0.18), k = 11, I² = 59%), and hypertonic dextrose prolotherapy for knee OA, which carries a Strength of Recommendation Taxonomy grade B and a clean safety record across 319 patients [206,207]. Even here the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons clinical practice guideline treats PRP as an evidence gap requiring better characterisation and subgroup stratification rather than as a graded recommendation [242].

Tier 2 — proven safety with growing but incomplete efficacy evidence — contains adipose-derived products for knee OA, which produced the largest significant class effect in our analysis (-0.75 (-1.23 to -0.27), k = 9) but rank least favourably on adverse events in network comparison [199]; hip and ankle osteoarthritis, where the direction of effect matches the knee but the trial count does not; and PRP for lumbar radicular and facet-mediated pain, graded Level III with moderate recommendation strength by the two most recent interventional-pain guideline syntheses [225,226,243].

Tier 3 — established safety but limited efficacy evidence, appropriate for registries and trials rather than routine care — contains autologous bone marrow products for arthrosis, where our pooled estimate is null (-0.07 (-0.49 to +0.35), p = 0.7396) and randomised-only synthesis finds no advantage over sham [230]; intradiscal cell therapy, where the controlled 12-month evidence reduces to a single trial [148]; MSC-derived exosomes, which have compelling preclinical data [205,244] and one small human randomised trial in our dataset; and every application in which the only available comparison is against saline.

Indication and product	Efficacy evidence	Safety evidence	Clinical implication
Tier 1 — proven safety, robust efficacy evidence
PRP, knee osteoarthritis	g -0.42 (-0.66 to -0.18) vs hyaluronic acid; k = 11, I² = 59%	No severe events; adverse events fewer with PRP + HA than PRP alone	Routine clinical use; document platelet dose and leukocyte content
Hypertonic dextrose prolotherapy, knee OA	SORT grade B; positive pooled WOMAC total at 6 months	No severe dextrose-related events in 319 patients	Routine use where PRP is unavailable or unaffordable
Tier 2 — proven safety, growing efficacy evidence
Adipose-derived products (AD-MSC, SVF, MFAT), knee OA	g -0.75 (-1.23 to -0.27); k = 9, I² = 87%	Least favourable adverse-event ranking among injectables	Use with explicit consent regarding uncertainty; prefer registry enrolment
Hip and ankle osteoarthritis, any product	Non-knee joints pooled g -0.55 (-0.98 to -0.13); k = 7	No distinct safety signal identified	Reasonable second-line use; effect size not joint-specific
PRP, lumbar radicular and facet pain	Level III evidence, moderate recommendation strength (GRADE)	No severe adverse events across 416 patients	Selected patients after failed conservative care
Tier 3 — established safety, limited efficacy evidence
Bone marrow products (BMAC, BM-MSC), arthrosis	g -0.07 (-0.49 to +0.35), p = 0.7396; k = 5	Complication rate equivalent to comparators; NNH 152	Registry or trial context only; not first-line despite cost and invasiveness
Intradiscal cell therapy, degenerative disc disease	Cell therapy pooled g -0.34 (-0.62 to -0.06) at 6 months; one controlled 12-month estimate	No excess serious adverse events versus sham	Trial or registry only
MSC-derived exosomes, any indication	Strong preclinical histological benefit; minimal human randomised data	Human safety data insufficient to characterise	Investigational only
Any indication studied only against saline or sham	Saline-referenced pooled g -0.97 (-1.54 to -0.41) versus -0.24 (-0.53 to +0.04) against active comparators	Not applicable	Interpret as unproven until an active-comparator trial exists

Table 10: Evidence-tiered framework for orthobiologic use in arthrosis and lumbar degeneration. Tiers are defined by safety establishment and by efficacy against a clinically meaningful comparator, not by mechanistic plausibility. Supporting citations are given in the corresponding text of Section 4.

Discussion

Principal findings

Orthobiologic injection produces a moderate, durable and statistically robust symptomatic benefit in arthrosis — pooled Hedges g -0.47 at 6 months and -0.53 at 12 months — that is smaller than the field's rhetoric and larger than its harshest critics allow. Three qualifications transform how that number should be used. First, it is comparator-dependent to a degree that is difficult to reconcile with a purely pharmacological mechanism. Second, it is not accompanied by structural change on imaging. Third, it is not uniform across product classes: the most invasive and expensive class, autologous bone marrow, is the one with no pooled benefit.

None of this makes orthobiologics ineffective. A moderate, durable reduction in pain with a benign safety profile is a clinically valuable thing in a disease for which the alternatives are repeated corticosteroid, chronic non-steroidal anti-inflammatory exposure, or arthroplasty. But it reframes what is being sold. The honest claim is symptomatic relief comparable to or modestly better than hyaluronic acid, with a favourable safety profile and no demonstrated disease modification. The claim of cartilage regeneration is not supported by human imaging data.

The comparator problem and contextual effects

The gap between the saline-referenced effect (-0.97 (-1.54 to -0.41)) and the active-comparator effect (-0.24 (-0.53 to +0.04)) is the central interpretive problem in this literature. Intra-articular saline is not an inert control: needle placement, joint distension, capsular stretch and the theatre of a technical procedure all produce measurable analgesia. When a formal partitioning analysis attributes roughly 63% of the 6-month pain reduction after MSC injection to contextual factors [204], and when our own data show the effect shrinking to null against corticosteroid, the parsimonious reading is that a large fraction of what patients experience after an orthobiologic injection would also follow a well-performed injection of something else. Trials that compare an orthobiologic against saline are therefore measuring the wrong thing, and the field's continued production of them is the main reason the evidence base has grown in size without growing in usefulness.

Product heterogeneity and reporting

Only 45 of 82 arthrosis trials (55%) fully characterised the product they injected. In a category where platelet dose varies by an order of magnitude between preparations, where leukocyte content plausibly determines whether the effect is anti-inflammatory or pro-inflammatory, and where a bone marrow concentrate may contain a mesenchymal fraction differing hundredfold between operators, incomplete reporting makes the pooled estimate an average over an undefined set of interventions. Our finding that trials with complete characterisation report slightly larger effects (-0.51 (-0.78 to -0.24) versus -0.39 (-0.66 to -0.12)) is consistent either with better products or with better trials, and the data cannot distinguish these. Minimum reporting standards — platelet concentration and absolute dose, leukocyte and erythrocyte content, activation method, injection volume, and for cell products the nucleated cell count and colony-forming-unit assay — would cost nothing and would transform the interpretability of the next decade of trials.

Quality of life, function and the wider health context

The clinical value of a moderate analgesic effect in arthrosis is not confined to the joint. Degenerative joint disease reduces physical activity, and reduced physical activity is associated with adverse cardiometabolic outcomes in longitudinal cohorts. An intervention that restores tolerable weight-bearing activity therefore has a plausible pathway to benefits beyond the treated joint, even in the absence of structural repair. That pathway is a hypothesis, not a finding: none of the trials in this dataset measured cardiovascular or mortality endpoints, and follow-up beyond 24 months was essentially absent. Clinicians may reasonably frame orthobiologic injection as a way to keep patients moving, but should not represent downstream systemic benefit as demonstrated.

The same caution applies to combination regimens. Adjunctive nutritional and pharmacological strategies are frequently bundled with orthobiologic injection in commercial practice. No trial in this dataset randomised such a combination against the injection alone, so any incremental benefit of the bundle is unmeasured. Where such adjuncts are used, they should be presented as independent choices with their own evidence base, not as part of the injection protocol.

Future directions

Four developments would change the tiers in Table 10. First, active-comparator trials: an adequately powered orthobiologic versus corticosteroid trial with 12-month follow-up would settle the question our null corticosteroid subgroup only raises (-0.29 (-0.79 to +0.20), k = 5). Second, cell-free products: MSC-derived exosomes reproduce the histological benefits of cell therapy in animal models [205,244] without the manufacturing, storage and regulatory burden of live cells, and they are the most likely route to an off-the-shelf product. Third, allogeneic and dose-defined cell products: a randomised-only synthesis found that allogeneic mesenchymal precursor cells produced durable improvement where autologous BMAC and MSC did not [230], which if replicated inverts the field's current preference for autologous harvesting. Fourth, patient stratification: the persistent I² of 83% in a category this large is unlikely to be pure noise, and inflammatory-phenotype, radiographic-severity and synovitis-based stratification are the obvious candidates for explaining it.

Limitations

Several limitations bear directly on interpretation. Pooling across products, joints, comparators and outcome instruments produces an estimate whose heterogeneity (I² = 83%) exceeds the threshold at which a single summary is conventionally advisable; we report it because the subgroup structure is more informative than the mean, not because the mean is the answer. Standardised mean differences across different instruments assume comparable responsiveness, which is unlikely to hold exactly between, for example, VAS pain and IKDC. Selection of one estimate per study by a fixed hierarchy discards information, though it avoids the greater error of double-counting. Risk of bias was captured only through blinding status and reporting completeness rather than through a full domain-level tool. The lumbar stream is too small to support confident conclusions and we have presented it as such. Trials reporting medians and interquartile ranges or figure-only data were excluded from pooling, which may itself introduce selection. Finally, the strong Egger and Begg asymmetry combined with a trim-and-fill estimate of 0 missing studies is an unresolved internal inconsistency that we report rather than reconcile; readers should treat the pooled effect as an upper bound.

Conclusion

Across 82 randomised trials in arthrosis, 24 clinical studies in lumbar degeneration and 63 systematic reviews, orthobiologic injection emerges as a safe intervention with a moderate, durable symptomatic effect that is largest where it is least meaningfully controlled. The pooled 6-month effect of -0.47 does not decay by 12 months, does not depend on which joint is treated, and does not translate into structural change on imaging. It does depend, heavily, on what the product is compared against and on whether the patient and assessor could tell which arm they were in. The most invasive product class in the category shows no pooled benefit at all.

The clinical conclusion is not that orthobiologics should be abandoned but that they should be positioned accurately: as a well-tolerated symptomatic option with a durability advantage over corticosteroid and an efficacy profile comparable to hyaluronic acid, offered with explicit acknowledgement that disease modification is not demonstrated. The research conclusion is sharper. This field does not need more saline-controlled trials of under characterized products. It needs active-comparator trials of dose-defined products in stratified populations, and it needs every trial to report the six numbers that describe what was actually injected.

Declarations

Not applicable. This study analysed previously published data only.

Availability of data and materials

All extracted data rows, with their source bindings, and the analysis scripts used to produce every figure and table are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Funding

No funding.

Authors' contributions

[MHK, CAPMR] conceived and designed the study. All authors read, revised and approved the final manuscript.

References

Filardo G, Kon E, Di Martino A, Di Matteo B, Merli ML, et al. (2012) Platelet-rich plasma vs hyaluronic acid to treat knee degenerative pathology: study design and preliminary results of a randomized controlled trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 13:229.
Rabago D, Patterson JJ, Mundt M, Kijowski R, Grettie J, et al. (2013) Dextrose prolotherapy for knee osteoarthritis: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Fam Med. 11(3):229-37.
Paterson KL, Nicholls M, Bennell KL, Bates D. (2023) Intra-articular injection of photo-activated platelet-rich plasma in patients with knee osteoarthritis: a double-blind, randomized controlled pilot study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord.17:67.
Rahimzadeh P, Rahimzadeh P, Imani F, Faiz SHR, Entezary SR. et al. (2018) The effects of injecting intra-articular platelet-rich plasma or prolotherapy on pain score and function in knee osteoarthritis. Clin Interv Aging. 13:73-79.
Malahias MA, Roumeliotis L, Nikolaou VS, Chronopoulos E, Sourlas I, et al. (2021) Platelet-Rich Plasma versus Corticosteroid Intra-Articular Injections for the Treatment of Trapeziometacarpal Arthritis: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial. Cartilage. 12(1):51-61.
Centeno C, Sheinkop M, Dodson E, Stemper I, Williams C, et al. (2018) A specific protocol of autologous bone marrow concentrate and platelet products versus exercise therapy for symptomatic knee osteoarthritis: a randomized controlled trial with 2 year follow-up. J Transl Med. 16(1):355.
Matas J, Orrego M, Amenabar D, Infante C, Tapia-Limonchi R, et al. (2018) Umbilical Cord-Derived Mesenchymal Stromal Cells (MSCs) for Knee Osteoarthritis: Repeated MSC Dosing Is Superior to a Single MSC Dose and to Hyaluronic Acid in a Controlled Randomized Phase I/II Trial. Stem Cells Transl Med. 8(3):215-224.
Gül D, Orsçelik A, Akpancar S. (2020) Treatment of Osteoarthritis Secondary to Developmental Dysplasia of the Hip with Prolotherapy Injection versus a Supervised Progressive Exercise Control. Med Sci Monit. 26:e919166.
Kesiktas FN, Dernek B, Sen EI, Albayrak HN, Aydin T, et al. (2020) Comparison of the short-term results of single-dose intra-articular peptide with hyaluronic acid and platelet-rich plasma injections in knee osteoarthritis: a randomized study. Clin Rheumatol. 39(10):3057-064.
Elksniņš-Finogejevs A, Vidal L, Peredistijs A. (2020) Intra-articular platelet-rich plasma vs corticosteroids in the treatment of moderate knee osteoarthritis: a single-center prospective randomized controlled study with a 1-year follow up. J Orthop Surg Res. 15(1):257.
Lamo-Espinosa JM, Blanco JF, Sánchez M, Moreno V, Granero-Moltó F, et al. (2020) Phase II multicenter randomized controlled clinical trial on the efficacy of intra-articular injection of autologous bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells with platelet rich plasma for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis. J Transl Med. 18(1):356.
Sun SF, Lin GC, Hsu CW, Lin HS, Liou IS, et al. (2021) Comparing efficacy of intraarticular single crosslinked Hyaluronan (HYAJOINT Plus) and platelet-rich plasma (PRP) versus PRP alone for treating knee osteoarthritis. Sci Rep. 11(1):140.
Raeissadat SA, Ghazi Hosseini P, Bahrami MH, Salman Roghani R, Fathi M, et al. (2021) The comparison effects of intra-articular injection of Platelet Rich Plasma (PRP), Plasma Rich in Growth Factor (PRGF), Hyaluronic Acid (HA), and ozone in knee osteoarthritis; a one year randomized clinical trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 22(1):134.
Waluyo Y, Budu, Bukhari A, Adnan E, Haryadi RD, et al. (2021) Changes in levels of cartilage oligomeric proteinase and urinary C-terminal telopeptide of type II collagen in subjects with knee osteoarthritis after dextrose prolotherapy: A randomized controlled trial. J Rehabil Med. 53(5):jrm00196.
Dório M, Pereira RMR, Luz AGB, Deveza LA, de Oliveira RM, et al. (2021) Efficacy of platelet-rich plasma and plasma for symptomatic treatment of knee osteoarthritis: a double-blinded placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 22(1):822.
Bennell KL, Paterson KL, Metcalf BR, Duong V, Eyles J, et al. (2021) Effect of Intra-articular Platelet-Rich Plasma vs Placebo Injection on Pain and Medial Tibial Cartilage Volume in Patients With Knee Osteoarthritis: The RESTORE Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 326(20):2021-30.
Dulic O, Rasovic P, Lalic I, Kecojevic V, Gavrilovic G, et al. (2021) Bone Marrow Aspirate Concentrate versus Platelet Rich Plasma or Hyaluronic Acid for the Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis. Medicina (Kaunas). 57(11):1193.
Zhang S, Xu H, He B, Fan M, Xiao M, et al. (2022) Mid-term prognosis of the stromal vascular fraction for knee osteoarthritis: a minimum 5-year follow-up study. Stem Cell Res Ther. 13(1):105.
Gobbi A, Dallo I, D'Ambrosi R. (2023) Autologous microfragmented adipose tissue and leukocyte-poor platelet-rich plasma combined with hyaluronic acid show comparable clinical outcomes for symptomatic early knee osteoarthritis over a two-year follow-up period: a prospective randomized clinical trial. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 33(5):1895-904.
Wang YC, Lee CL, Chen YJ, Tien YC, Lin SY, et al. (2022) Comparing the Efficacy of Intra-Articular Single Platelet-Rich Plasma (PRP) versus Novel Crosslinked Hyaluronic Acid for Early-Stage Knee Osteoarthritis: A Prospective, Double-Blind, Randomized Controlled Trial. Medicina (Kaunas). 58(8):1028.
Dong C, Zhao C, Wang F. (2022) Clinical benefit of high tibial osteotomy combined with the intervention of platelet-rich plasma for severe knee osteoarthritis. J Orthop Surg Res. 17(5):405. 7
Nouri F, Babaee M, Peydayesh P, Esmaily H, Raeissadat SA, et al. (2022) Comparison between the effects of ultrasound guided intra-articular injections of platelet-rich plasma (PRP), high molecular weight hyaluronic acid, and their combination in hip osteoarthritis: a randomized clinical trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 23(1):856.
Lu M, Jin Y. (2022) Efficacy Evaluation of the Combined Platelet-Rich Plasma and Hyaluronic Acid after Arthroscopic Joint Debridement in Treating Knee Osteoarthritis. Scanning. 6994017.
Huang HY, Hsu CW, Lin GC, Lin HS, Chou YJ, et al. (2022) Comparing efficacy of a single intraarticular injection of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) combined with different hyaluronans for knee osteoarthritis: a randomized-controlled clinical trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 23(1):954.
Kotb SY, Sherif NM, Saleh HA, Ahmed SF, Sakr HM, et al. (2022) The role of intra-articular injection of autologous platelet-rich plasma versus corticosteroids in the treatment of synovitis in lumbar facet joint disease. Saudi Med J. 43(11):1200-1208.
Paget LDA, Reurink G, de Vos RJ, Weir A, Moen MH, et al. (2023) Platelet-Rich Plasma Injections for the Treatment of Ankle Osteoarthritis. Am J Sports Med. 51(10):2625-634.
Damjanov N, Zekovic A. (2023) Intra-articular autologous conditioned serum and triamcinolone injections in patients with knee osteoarthritis: a controlled, randomized, double-blind study. J Int Med Res. 51(10):3000605231203851.
Karaborklu Argut S, Celik D, Ergin ON, Kilicoglu OI. (2024) Does the Combination of Platelet-rich Plasma and Supervised Exercise Yield Better Pain Relief and Enhanced Function in Knee Osteoarthritis? A Randomized Controlled Trial. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 482(6):1051-61.
Zhuang W, Li T, Li Y, Zhang Y, Gao J, et al. (2024) The varying clinical effectiveness of single, three and five intraarticular injections of platelet-rich plasma in knee osteoarthritis. J Orthop Surg Res. 19(1):284.
Xu RD, Li JH, Zhang H, Liang HR, Duan SY, et al. (2024) The combined application of pulsed electromagnetic fields and platelet-rich plasma in the treatment of early-stage knee osteoarthritis: A randomized clinical trial. Medicine (Baltimore). 103(35):e39369.
Romandini I, Boffa A, Di Martino A, Andriolo L, Cenacchi A, et al. (2024) Leukocytes Do Not Influence the Safety and Efficacy of Platelet-Rich Plasma Injections for the Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis: A Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial. Am J Sports Med. 52(13):3212-222.
Ghorbani O, Mahdibarzi D, Yousefi-Tooddeshki P. (2024) Comparison of the short-term effect of intra-articular hyaluronic acid and platelet-rich plasma injections in knee osteoarthritis: a randomized clinical trial. J Prev Med Hyg. 65(2):E214-E220.
Bolandnazar NS, Raeissadat SA, Haghighatkhah H, Rayegani SM, Oshnari RS, et al. (2024) Safety and efficacy of placental mesenchymal stromal cells-derived extracellular vesicles in knee osteoarthritis: a randomized, triple-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 25(1):856.
Pill SG, Ahearn B, Tokish JM, Cook C, Siffri PJ, et al. (2025) Amniotic Tissue Injections Are an Effective Alternative to Corticosteroid Injections for Pain Relief and Function in Patients With Severe Knee Osteoarthritis: A Double-Blind, Randomized, Prospective Study. J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev. 9(1):e23.00276
Lee BW, Lee JJ, Jung JY, Ju JH. (2025) Intra-Articular Injection of Human Bone Marrow-Derived Mesenchymal Stem Cells in Knee Osteoarthritis: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Controlled Trial. Cell Transplant. 34:9636897241303275.
Lu J, Wen T, Huang H, Xie C, Kang J, et al. (2025) Intraarticular injection of the stromal vascular fraction for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis a prospective randomized controlled clinical trial. Sci Rep. 15(1):28109.
Tangkanjanavelukul P, Khuangsirikul S, Heebthamai D, Yamabhai M, Sumphanapai T, et al. (2025) Cartilage Regeneration Potential in Early Osteoarthritis of the Knee: A Prospective, Randomized, Open, and Blinded Endpoint Study Comparing Adipose-Derived Mesenchymal Stem Cell (ADSC) Therapy Versus Hyaluronic Acid. Int J Mol Sci. (17):8476.
Jafar H, Samara O, Shahin D, Daoud F, Al-Hattab D, et al. (2026) Intra-articular allogeneic adipose-derived mesenchymal stromal cell injections for stage III knee osteoarthritis: a double-blind placebo-controlled trial with 60-month follow-up. Stem Cells Transl Med. 15(5):1625-636.
Lana JF, Pires L, Macedo A, Mainine S, Mosaner T, et al. (2026) Randomized clinical trial comparing intra-articular injection of bone marrow aspirate clot and bone marrow aspirate concentrate in grade 3 and 4 knee osteoarthritis. Stem Cell Res Ther. 17(1):168.
Jing B, Zhang Z, Lv Y, Zhou S, Liu F, et al. (2026) Injection of Adipose-Derived Mesenchymal Stem Cell-Enriched Adipose Extract for Temporomandibular Joint Osteoarthritis: A Randomised Controlled Trial. Int Dent J. 76(4):109604.
Di Martino A, Di Matteo B, Papio T, Tentoni F, Selleri F, et al. (2019) Platelet-Rich Plasma Versus Hyaluronic Acid Injections for the Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis: Results at 5 Years of a Double-Blind, Randomized Controlled Trial. Am J Sports Med. 47(2):347-54.
Du W, Cui HP, Fu BS, Li W, Liu Q, et al. (2020) [Platelet rich plasma intra-articular and extra-articular injection for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis]. Zhongguo Gu Shang. 33(3):209-13.
Zaffagnini S, Andriolo L, Boffa A, Poggi A, Cenacchi A, et al. (2022) Microfragmented Adipose Tissue Versus Platelet-Rich Plasma for the Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial at 2-Year Follow-up. Am J Sports Med. 50(11):2881-92.
Jahani P, Angoorani H, Moezy A, Fazlinejad M, Mazaherinezhad A, et al. (2026) A comparative study of the efficacy of single and double centrifuged platelet-rich plasma and placebo (normal saline injection) on pain, ROM, and physical function of patients with knee osteoarthritis: a double-blinded controlled randomized trial with a six-month follow-up. Adv Rheumatol. 66(1):15
Ângelo DF, Cardoso HJ, Sanz D, Maffia F, Sarkis M, et al. (2025) Double-Puncture Arthrocentesis in Arthrogenous TMJ Disorders: Bioviscosupplementation vs. Viscosupplementation a Randomized Controlled Trial. J Clin Med. 14(11):3750.
Abbadi W, Kara Beit Z, Al-Khanati NM. (2022) Arthrocentesis, Injectable Platelet-Rich Plasma and Combination of Both Protocols of Temporomandibular Joint Disorders Management: A Single-Blinded Randomized Clinical Trial. Cureus. 14(11):e31396.
Singh N, Gupta AK, Kumar D, Mishra S, Yadav G, et al. (2025) The comparative effects of injecting intra-articular platelet-rich plasma and hypertonic dextrose prolotherapy in osteoarthritis knee - A randomized control trial. J Family Med Prim Care. 14(6):2180-86.
Okanoue Y, Ikeuchi M, Dan J, Teranishi Y. (2025) Effectiveness of platelet-rich plasma in pain management of osteoarthritis with developmental dysplasia of the hip: a double-blind, randomized controlled trial. J Hip Preserv Surg. 12(4):230-36.
Topaloglu M, Şen Eİ, Sarıkaya D, Dıraçoğlu D. (2024) Effect of platelet-rich plasma injections versus placebo on pain and quality of life in patients with hip osteoarthritis: A double-blind, randomized clinical trial. Turk J Phys Med Rehabil. 70(2):212-20.
Wasilczyk C, Wasilczyk B. (2025) Nanosurgery and Bioengineered Regenerative Protocols for the Treatment of Hip Osteoarthritis: A Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial as an Alternative to Surgical Hip Replacement. Biomedicines. 13(4):987.
Patel S, Gahlaut S, Thami T, Chouhan DK, Jain A. (2024) Comparison of Conventional Dose Versus Superdose Platelet-Rich Plasma for Knee Osteoarthritis: A Prospective, Triple-Blind, Randomized Clinical Trial. Orthop J Sports Med. 2024;12(2):23259671241227863.
Baria M, Pedroza A, Kaeding C, Durgam S, Duerr R, et al. (2022) Platelet-Rich Plasma Versus Microfragmented Adipose Tissue for Knee Osteoarthritis: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Orthop J Sports Med. 10(9):23259671221120678.
Wu YT, Li TY, Lee KC, Lam KHS, Chang CY, et al. (2022) Efficacy of a Novel Intra-Articular Administration of Platelet-Rich Plasma One-Week Prior to Hyaluronic Acid versus Platelet-Rich Plasma Alone in Knee Osteoarthritis: A Prospective, Randomized, Double-Blind, Controlled Trial. J Clin Med. 11(11):3241.
Kraeutler MJ, Houck DA, Garabekyan T, Miller SL, Dragoo JL, et al. (2021) Comparing Intra-articular Injections of Leukocyte-Poor Platelet-Rich Plasma Versus Low-Molecular Weight Hyaluronic Acid for the Treatment of Symptomatic Osteoarthritis of the Hip: A Double-Blind, Randomized Pilot Study. Orthop J Sports Med. 9(1):2325967120969210.
Arliani GG, Durigon TS, Pedroso JP, Ferreira GF, Oksman D, et al. (2022) Intra-articular Infiltration of Platelet-Rich Plasma versus Hyaluronic Acid in Patients with Primary Knee Osteoarthritis: Preliminary Results from a Randomized Clinical Trial. Rev Bras Ortop (Sao Paulo). 57(3):402-08.
Anz AW, Hubbard R, Rendos NK, Everts PA, Andrews JR, et al. (2020) Bone Marrow Aspirate Concentrate Is Equivalent to Platelet-Rich Plasma for the Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis at 1 Year: A Prospective, Randomized Trial. Orthop J Sports Med. 8(2):2325967119900958.
Dwyer T, Hoit G, Lee A, Watkins E, Henry P, et al. (2021) Injection of Bone Marrow Aspirate for Glenohumeral Joint Osteoarthritis: A Pilot Randomized Control Trial. Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil. 3(5):1431-40.
Joshi Jubert N, Rodríguez L, Reverté-Vinaixa MM, Navarro A. (2017) Platelet-Rich Plasma Injections for Advanced Knee Osteoarthritis: A Prospective, Randomized, Double-Blinded Clinical Trial. Orthop J Sports Med. 5(2):2325967116689386.
Ebnerasooli S, Barghi A, Nasseri K, Moghimi N. (2024) Peri-articular Dextrose Prolotherapy: Investigating the Effect of Injection Site on Knee Osteoarthritis Pain: A Double-Blind, Randomized, Clinical Trial. Anesth Pain Med. 14(2):e140966.
Imani F, Hejazian K, Kazemi MR, Narimani-Zamanabadi M, Malik KM, et al. (2020) Adding Ozone to Dextrose and Somatropin for Intra-articular Knee Prolotherapy: A Randomized Single-Blinded Controlled Trial. Anesth Pain Med. 10(5):e110277.
Bayat M, Hojjati F, Boland Nazar NS, Modabberi M, Rahimi MS, et al. (2023) Comparison of Dextrose Prolotherapy and Triamcinolone Intraarticular Injection on Pain and Function in Patients with Knee Osteoarthritis - A Randomized Clinical Trial. Anesth Pain Med. 13(2):e134415.
Farpour HR, Fereydooni F. (2017) Comparative effectiveness of intra-articular prolotherapy versus peri-articular prolotherapy on pain reduction and improving function in patients with knee osteoarthritis: A randomized clinical trial. Electron Physician. 9(11):5663-5669.
Raeissadat SA, Gharooee Ahangar A, Rayegani SM, Minator Sajjadi M, Ebrahimpour A, et al. (2020) Platelet-Rich Plasma-Derived Growth Factor vs Hyaluronic Acid Injection in the Individuals with Knee Osteoarthritis: A One Year Randomized Clinical Trial. J Pain Res. 13:1699-711.
Baria M, Barker T, Durgam S, Pedroza A, Flanigan D, et al. (2024) Microfragmented Adipose Tissue Is Equivalent to Platelet-Rich Plasma for Knee Osteoarthritis at 12 Months Posttreatment: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Orthop J Sports Med. 12(3):23259671241233916.
Sadri B, Hassanzadeh M, Bagherifard A, Mohammadi J, Alikhani M, et al. (2023) Cartilage regeneration and inflammation modulation in knee osteoarthritis following injection of allogeneic adipose-derived mesenchymal stromal cells: a phase II, triple-blinded, placebo controlled, randomized trial. Stem Cell Res Ther. 14(1):162.
Molnar V, Jeleč Ž, Rod E, Hudetz D, Brlek P, et al. (2025) Clinical and dGEMRIC Evaluation of Microfragmented Adipose Tissue Versus Hyaluronic Acid in Inflammatory Phenotype of Knee Osteoarthritis: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Biomedicines. 13(9):2301.
Wu CZ, Shi ZY, Wu Z, Lin WJ, Chen WB, et al. (2023) Mid-term outcomes of microfragmented adipose tissue plus arthroscopic surgery for knee osteoarthritis: A randomized, active-control, multicenter clinical trial. World J Stem Cells. 15(12):1063-076.
Stefano Z, Luca A, Angelo B, Alberto P, Annarita C, et al. (2022) Micro-Fragmented Adipose Tissue versus Platelet-Rich Plasma for the Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial at 2-year follow-up. Orthop J Sports Med. 10(7 suppl5).
Sadat-Ali M, AlOmran AS, AlMousa SA, AlSayed HN, AlTabash KW, et al. (2021) Autologous Bone Marrow-Derived Chondrocytes for Patients with Knee Osteoarthritis: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Adv Orthop. 2021:2146722.
Lu L, Dai C, Zhang Z, Du H, Li S, et al. (2019) Treatment of knee osteoarthritis with intra-articular injection of autologous adipose-derived mesenchymal progenitor cells: a prospective, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, phase IIb clinical trial. Stem Cell Res Ther. 10(1):143.
Gupta PK, Chullikana A, Rengasamy M, Shetty N, Pandey V, et al. (2016) Efficacy and safety of adult human bone marrow-derived, cultured, pooled, allogeneic mesenchymal stromal cells (Stempeucel®): preclinical and clinical trial in osteoarthritis of the knee joint. Arthritis Res Ther. 18(1):301.
Freitag J, Chamberlain M, Wickham J, Shah K, Cicuttini F, et al. (2024) Safety and efficacy of an allogeneic adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cell preparation in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis: A Phase I/IIa randomised controlled trial. Osteoarthr Cartil Open. 6(3):100500.
Zhao X, Ruan J, Tang H, Li J, Shi Y, et al. (2019) Multi-compositional MRI evaluation of repair cartilage in knee osteoarthritis with treatment of allogeneic human adipose-derived mesenchymal progenitor cells. Stem Cell Res Ther. 10(1):308.
Madrazo-Ibarra A, Barve R, Carroll KM, Proner R, Topar C, et al. (2022) Carboplasty, a Simple Tibial Marrow Technique for Knee Osteoarthritis: A Placebo-Controlled Randomized Trial. Orthop J Sports Med. 10(12):23259671221143743.
Ghadamzadeh M, Mohsenzadeh SA, Bagheri SM, Angoorani H, Mazaherinejad A, et al. (2025) MRI Findings after Injection of Single and Double Centrifuged Platelet-Rich Plasma and Placebo (Normal Saline) in Patients with Knee Osteoarthritis: A Randomized Double-Blind Clinical Trial with Six-Month Follow-Up. Arch Bone Jt Surg. 13(9):572-81.
Sánchez Santiuste M, Vaquerizo García V, Pareja Esteban JA, Prado R, Padilla S, et al. (2025) Plasma Rich in Growth Factors (PRGF) Versus Saline Intraosseous Infiltrations Combined with Intra-Articular PRGF in Severe Knee Osteoarthritis: A Prospective Double-Blind Multicentric Randomized Controlled Trial with 1-Year Follow-Up. J Clin Med. 14(22):8075.
Saraf A, Habib H, Bishnoi S, Parakh NK, Sharma A, et al. (2025) Cartilage Regeneration Potential of Platelet-Rich Plasma versus Plasma Rich in Growth Factors in Knee Osteoarthritis Based on Serum Biomarker of Cartilage Degradation, Coll2-1: A Triple-Blind Randomized Study. J Orthop Case Rep. 15(4):277-86.
Zhu X, Zhao L, Riva N, Yu Z, Jiang M, et al. (2024) Allogeneic platelet-rich plasma for knee osteoarthritis in patients with primary immune thrombocytopenia: A randomized clinical trial. iScience. 27(5):109664.
Zhang M, Chew K, Goh P, Tun MH, Sheah K, et al. (2025) Clinical Efficacy of Platelet-Rich Plasma and Hyaluronic Acid Versus Hyaluronic Acid for Knee Osteoarthritis with MRI Analysis: A Randomized Controlled Trial. J Clin Med. 14(10):3553.
Wang Z, Wang R, Xiang S, Gu Y, Xu T, et al. (2022) Assessment of the effectiveness and satisfaction of platelet-rich plasma compared with hyaluronic acid in knee osteoarthritis at minimum 7-year follow-up: A post hoc analysis of a randomized controlled trial. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 10:1062371.
Pretorius J, Nemat N, Alsayed A, Mustafa A, Hammad Y, et al. (2022) Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Platelet-Rich Plasma With Intra-Articular Corticosteroid Injections in Patients With Bilateral Knee Osteoarthritis. Cureus. 14(9):e29744.
Zhou Y, Li H, Cao S, Han Y, Shao J, et al. (2022) Clinical Efficacy of Intra-Articular Injection with P-PRP Versus that of L-PRP in Treating Knee Cartilage Lesion: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Orthop Surg. 15(3):740-49.
Barzegar N, Ghaderpanah R, Farpour HR, Nejad MEG. (2025) Comparing Mannitol and Hypertonic Dextrose Injections for Knee Osteoarthritis Pain and Function: A Randomised Trial. Mediterr J Rheumatol. 36(1):100-06.
Chen CF, Hu CC, Wu CT, Wu HH, Chang CS, et al. (2021) Treatment of knee osteoarthritis with intra-articular injection of allogeneic adipose-derived stem cells (ADSCs) ELIXCYTE®: a phase I/II, randomized, active-control, single-blind, multiple-center clinical trial. Stem Cell Res Ther. 12(1):562.
Dilogo IH, Canintika AF, Hartanto BR, Pandelaki J, Himantoko IG, et al. (2024) Evaluating Synergistic Effects of Hyaluronic Acid, Human Umbilical Cord-Derived Mesenchymal Stem Cells, and Growth Hormones in Knee Osteoarthritis: A Multi-Arm Randomized Trial. Biomedicines. 12(10):2332.
Evans K, von Kieseritzky J, Stenseth J, Wilcke M. (2025) Platelet-Rich Plasma Injection for Painful Trapeziometacarpal Osteoarthritis: A Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial. JB JS Open Access. 10(2):e25.00027.
Fiolin J, Dilogo I, Lubis A, Pawitan J, Liem I, et al. (2020) Functional and Radiological Comparison of Umbilical Cord Mesenchymal Stem Cells, Somatotropin, and Hyaluronic Acid Injection for Cartilage Repair in Early Osteoarthritis of the Knee: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Orthop J Sports Med. 8(5 suppl5).
Fossati C, Randelli FMN, Sciancalepore F, Maglione D, Pasqualotto S, et al. (2024) Efficacy of intra-articular injection of combined platelet-rich-plasma (PRP) and hyaluronic acid (HA) in knee degenerative joint disease: a prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical trial. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 144(11):5039-51.
Freitag J, Bates D, Wickham J, Shah K, Huguenin L, et al. (2019) Adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cell therapy in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis: a randomized controlled trial. Regen Med. 14(3):213-30.
Fu Y, Du Y, Li J, Xi Y, Ji W, et al. (2024) Demonstrating the effectiveness of intra-articular prolotherapy combined with peri-articular perineural injection in knee osteoarthritis: a randomized controlled trial. J Orthop Surg Res. 19(1):279.
Gupta PK, Maheshwari S, Cherian JJ, Goni V, Sharma AK, et al. (2026) Two years efficacy and safety outcomes of using allogeneic, pooled mesenchymal stromal cells for osteoarthritis of knee in a double-blind randomized placebo-controlled phase 3 study. Osteoarthr Cartil Open. 8(1):100723.
Hernigou P, Delambre J, Quiennec S, Poignard A. (2021) Human bone marrow mesenchymal stem cell injection in subchondral lesions of knee osteoarthritis: a prospective randomized study versus contralateral arthroplasty at a mean fifteen year follow-up. Int Orthop. 45(2):365-73.
Hong Z, Chen J, Zhang S, Zhao C, Bi M, et al. (2019) Intra-articular injection of autologous adipose-derived stromal vascular fractions for knee osteoarthritis: a double-blind randomized self-controlled trial. Int Orthop. 43(5):1123-134.
Huang Y, Liu X, Xu X, Liu J. (2019) Intra-articular injections of platelet-rich plasma, hyaluronic acid or corticosteroids for knee osteoarthritis: A prospective randomized controlled study. Orthopade. 48(3):239-47.
Khasru MR, Siddiq MAB, Jubery TAZN, Marzen T, Hoque A, et al. (2023) Outcome of Intra-articular Injection of Total Stromal Cells and Platelet-Rich Plasma in Primary Knee Osteoarthritis: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Cureus. 15(2):e34595.
Kim JH, Kim KI, Yoon WK, Song SJ, Jin W, et al. (2022) Intra-articular Injection of Mesenchymal Stem Cells After High Tibial Osteotomy in Osteoarthritic Knee: Two-Year Follow-up of Randomized Control Trial. Stem Cells Transl Med. 11(6):572-85.
Kirschner JS, Cheng J, Creighton A, Santiago K, Hurwitz N, et al. (2022) Efficacy of Ultrasound-Guided Glenohumeral Joint Injections of Leukocyte-Poor Platelet-Rich Plasma Versus Hyaluronic Acid in the Treatment of Glenohumeral Osteoarthritis: A Randomized, Double-Blind Controlled Trial. Clin J Sport Med. 32(6):558-66.
Kuah D, Sivell S, Longworth T, James K, Guermazi A, et al. (2018) Safety, tolerability and efficacy of intra-articular Progenza in knee osteoarthritis: a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled single ascending dose study. J Transl Med. 16(1):49.
Lamo-Espinosa JM, Mora G, Blanco JF, Granero-Moltó F, Nuñez-Córdoba JM, et al. (2016) Intra-articular injection of two different doses of autologous bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells versus hyaluronic acid in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis: multicenter randomized controlled clinical trial (phase I/II). J Transl Med. 14(1):246.
Lamo-Espinosa JM, Mora G, Blanco JF, Granero-Moltó F, Núñez-Córdoba JM et al. (2018) Intra-articular injection of two different doses of autologous bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells versus hyaluronic acid in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis: long-term follow up of a multicenter randomized controlled clinical trial (phase I/II). J Transl Med 16(1):213.
Lana JF, Weglein A, Sampson SE, Vicente EF, Huber SC, et al. (2016) Randomized controlled trial comparing hyaluronic acid, platelet-rich plasma and the combination of both in the treatment of mild and moderate osteoarthritis of the knee. J Stem Cells Regen Med. 12(2):69-78.
Lee WS, Kim HJ, Kim KI, Kim GB, Jin W, et al. (2019) Intra-Articular Injection of Autologous Adipose Tissue-Derived Mesenchymal Stem Cells for the Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis: A Phase IIb, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial. Stem Cells Transl Med. 8(6):504-11.
Li T, Li Y, Li W, Wang X, Ding Q, et al. (2023) Impact of autologous platelet-rich plasma therapy vs. hyaluronic acid on synovial fluid biomarkers in knee osteoarthritis: a randomized controlled clinical trial. Front Med (Lausanne). 10:1258727.
Allison DJ, Ebrahimzadeh S, Muise S, Joseph S, Roa Agudelo A, et al. (2026) Intra-articular corticosteroid injections versus platelet-rich plasma as a treatment for cervical facetogenic pain: a randomized clinical trial. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 51(1):33-40.
Martínez-Barro D, Rivera-Bello JD, Cruz-López JM, Hernández-Amaro H, Rojano-Mejía D, et al. (2023) [Functionality/isokinetic work of quadriceps in patients with gonarthrosis managed with prolotherapy]. Rev Med Inst Mex Seguro Soc. 61(6):788-95.
Mautner K, Gottschalk M, Boden SD, Akard A, Bae WC, et al. (2023) Cell-based versus corticosteroid injections for knee pain in osteoarthritis: a randomized phase 3 trial. Nat Med. 29(12):3120-126.
Meng B, Li X, Yang B, Qu Y, He Y, et al. (2026) Circulating Metabolites Treat Human TMJ-OA by Eliminating Senescent Chondrocytes via the C1QBP/C1q/p14ARF Axis. J Extracell Vesicles. 15(2):e70224.
Montañez-Heredia E, Irízar S, Huertas PJ, Otero E, Del Valle M, et al. (2016) Intra-Articular Injections of Platelet-Rich Plasma versus Hyaluronic Acid in the Treatment of Osteoarthritic Knee Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial in the Context of the Spanish National Health Care System. Int J Mol Sci. 17(7):E1064.
Mormone E, Savastano L, Rossi G, Maruccia F, Di Maggio G, et al. (2024) Posterior iliac crest vs. proximal tibia: distinct sources of anti-inflammatory and regenerative cells with comparable 6-month clinical outcomes in treatment of osteoarthritis. J Transl Med. 22(1):1101.
Paget LDA, Reurink G, de Vos RJ, Weir A, Moen MH, et al. (2021) Effect of Platelet-Rich Plasma Injections vs Placebo on Ankle Symptoms and Function in Patients With Ankle Osteoarthritis: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 326(16):1595-05.
Qiao J, Guo X, Zhang L, Zhao H, He X, et al. (2024) Autologous platelet rich plasma injection can be effective in the management of osteoarthritis of the knee: impact on IL-1 β, TNF-α, hs-CRP. J Orthop Surg Res. 19(1):703.
Riglet L, Delgado T, Lopez RF, Pers YM, Cyteval C, et al. (2026) Efficacy and safety of a combination of platelet-rich plasma with non-crosslinked hyaluronic acid versus a crosslinked hyaluronic acid, in single-injection for knee osteoarthritis. Randomized, controlled, multicenter, non-inferiority trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 27(1):272.
Saiz LC, Erviti J, Leache L, Gutiérrez-Valencia M. (2023) Restoring Study PRGF: a randomized clinical trial on plasma rich in growth factors for knee osteoarthritis. Trials. 24(1):37.
Sajadi S, Khadembashiri MA, Raissi G, Khadembashiri MM, Mansouri K, et al. (2025) The role of adipose-derived stem cells in knee osteoarthritis treatment: insights from a triple-blind clinical study. Stem Cell Res Ther. 16(1):242.
Saraf A, Hussain A, Mahipal V, Agarwal T, Kush A, et al. (2025) The Multiple Dosing Effects of Platelet-Rich Plasma on Cartilage Regeneration in Knee Osteoarthritis: Randomised, Placebo-Controlled Trial. Malays Orthop J. 19(1):11-20.
Shapiro SA, Kazmerchak SE, Heckman MG, Zubair AC, O'Connor MI, et al. (2017) A Prospective, Single-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial of Bone Marrow Aspirate Concentrate for Knee Osteoarthritis. Am J Sports Med. 45(1):82-90.
Shapiro SA, Arthurs JR, Heckman MG, Bestic JM, Kazmerchak SE, et al. (2019) Quantitative T2 MRI Mapping and 12-Month Follow-up in a Randomized, Blinded, Placebo Controlled Trial of Bone Marrow Aspiration and Concentration for Osteoarthritis of the Knees. Cartilage. 10(4):432-43.
Sit RWS, Wu RWK, Rabago D, Reeves KD, Chan DCC, et al. (2020) Efficacy of Intra-Articular Hypertonic Dextrose (Prolotherapy) for Knee Osteoarthritis: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Ann Fam Med. 18(3):235-42.
Smith PA. (2016) Intra-articular Autologous Conditioned Plasma Injections Provide Safe and Efficacious Treatment for Knee Osteoarthritis: An FDA-Sanctioned, Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled Clinical Trial. Am J Sports Med. 44(4):884-91.
Sun Z, Su W, Wang L, Cheng Z, Yang F, et al. (2022) Clinical Effect of Bushen Huoxue Method Combined with Platelet-Rich Plasma in the Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis and Its Effect on IL-1, IL-6, VEGF, and PGE-2. J Healthc Eng. 2022:9491439.
Sun H, Zhai H, Han K, Ma H, Tan Y, et al. (2024) Clinical outcomes of autologous adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cell combined with high tibial osteotomy for knee osteoarthritis are correlated with stem cell stemness and senescence. J Transl Med. 22(1):1039.
Teymouri A, Birang N, Fakheri M, Nasiri A. (2025) Comparison of the efficacy of ultrasound-guided dextrose 25% hypertonic prolotherapy and intra-articular normal saline injection on pain, functional limitation, and range of motion in patients with knee osteoarthritis; a randomized controlled trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 26(1):313.
Tong W, Shi Y, Wu D, Jia J, Xiang E, et al. (2025) Intra-articular injection of umbilical cord-derived mesenchymal stem cells is safe and effective for moderate to severe knee osteoarthritis with synovitis: a double‑blinded and randomized controlled trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 27(1):84.
Tschopp M, Pfirrmann CWA, Fucentese SF, Brunner F, Catanzaro S, et al. (2023) A Randomized Trial of Intra-articular Injection Therapy for Knee Osteoarthritis. Invest Radiol. 58(5):355-62
Ulivi M, Meroni V, Viganò M, Colombini A, Lombardo MDM, et al. (2023) Micro-fragmented adipose tissue (mFAT) associated with arthroscopic debridement provides functional improvement in knee osteoarthritis: a randomized controlled trial. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 31(8):3079-90
Barman A, Bandyopadhyay D, Mohakud S, Sahoo J, Maiti R, et al. (2023) Comparison of clinical outcome, cartilage turnover, and inflammatory activity following either intra-articular or a combination of intra-articular with intra-osseous platelet-rich plasma injections in osteoarthritis knee: A randomized, clinical trial. Injury. 54(2):728-37.
Kim KI, Lee MC, Lee JH, Moon YW, Lee WS, et al. (2023) Clinical Efficacy and Safety of the Intra-articular Injection of Autologous Adipose-Derived Mesenchymal Stem Cells for Knee Osteoarthritis: A Phase III, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial. Am J Sports Med. 51(9):2243-253.
Pico OA, Espinoza F, Cádiz MI, Sossa CL, Becerra-Bayona SM, et al. (2025) Efficacy of a single dose of cryopreserved human umbilical cord mesenchymal stromal cells for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis:a randomized, controlled, double-blind pilot study. Cytotherapy. 27(2):188-200.
Ustun I, Çağlar S. (2023) Comparison of the effect of prolotherapy and paraffin wax for hand osteoarthritis. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 27(20):9510-520.
Wang Y, Jin W, Liu H, Cui Y, Mao Q, et al. (2016) [Curative effect of human umbilical cord mesenchymal stem cells by intra-articular injection for degenerative knee osteoarthritis]. Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi. 30(12):1472-477.
Yurtbay A, Say F, Çinka H, Ersoy A, et al. (2022) Multiple platelet-rich plasma injections are superior to single PRP injections or saline in osteoarthritis of the knee: the 2-year results of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 142(10):2755-768.
Zhang Y, Bi Q, Luo J, Tong Y, Yu T. (2022) The Effect of Autologous Adipose-Derived Stromal Vascular Fractions on Cartilage Regeneration Was Quantitatively Evaluated Based on the 3D-FS-SPGR Sequence: A Clinical Trial Study. Biomed Res Int. 2022:2777568.
Won SJ, Kim DY, Kim JM. (2022) Effect of platelet-rich plasma injections for chronic nonspecific low back pain: A randomized controlled study. Medicine (Baltimore). 101(8):e28935.
Wongjarupong A, Pairuchvej S, Laohapornsvan P, Kotheeranurak V, Jitpakdee K, et al. (2023) "Platelet-Rich Plasma" epidural injection an emerging strategy in lumbar disc herniation: a Randomized Controlled Trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 24(1):335.
Lee WY, Lee HY, Ko SH, Chiu PF, Li MY. (2026) et al. Comparative Outcomes of Lumbar Platelet-Rich Plasma Injection Versus Conservative Treatment for Chronic Discogenic and/or Radicular Pain: A Retrospective Cohort Study. Biomedicines. 14(5):1061
Santos WZ, Yamaguchi RSS, Machado ES, de Mendonça RGM, Gotfryd A, et al. (2026) PRP infiltration versus corticosteroids: a preliminary randomized clinical trial. Acta Ortop Bras. 34(4):e295387.
Wang X, Wang S, Zhang J, Xie G, Zhang J, et al. (2025) Platelet-rich plasma for the treatment of discogenic low back pain: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Front Pain Res (Lausanne). 6:1648772.
Playfair D, Smith A, Burnham R. (2024) An evaluation of the effectiveness of platelet rich plasma epidural injections for low back pain suspected to be of disc origin - A pilot study with one-year follow-up. Interv Pain Med. 3(2):100403.
Singh GK, Talawar P, Kumar A, Sharma RS, Purohit G, et al. (2023) Effect of autologous platelet-rich plasma (PRP) on low back pain in patients with prolapsed intervertebral disc: A randomised controlled trial. Indian J Anaesth. 67(3):277-82.
Cao ZL, Xu H, Wu JQ, Dai JH, Lin SJ, et al. (2023) The Clinical Efficacy of Autologous Platelet-Rich Plasma Interventional Circulatory Perfusion Combined with Radiofrequency Ablation and Thermocoagulation in the Treatment of Discogenic Low Back Pain. Int J Clin Pract. 2023:1489905.
Zhang J, Liu D, Gong Q, Chen J, Wan L, et al. (2022) Intradiscal Autologous Platelet-Rich Plasma Injection for Discogenic Low Back Pain: A Clinical Trial. Biomed Res Int. 2022:9563693.
Kawabata S, Nagai S, Ito K, Takeda H, Ikeda D, et al. (2024) Intradiscal administration of autologous platelet-rich plasma in patients with Modic type 1 associated low back pain: A prospective pilot study. JOR Spine. 7(1):e1320.
Mounisamy P, Dwajan A, Sahoo D, Jeyaraman N, Muthu S, et al. (2025) Efficacy of intradiscal autologous platelet-rich plasma injection in chronic lumbar disc prolapse: A quasi-experimental study. World J Orthop. 16(12):110530.
Pan X, Peng G, Yao Q, Liu Z, Zhang X, et al. (2026) Intradiscal platelet-rich plasma for discogenic low back pain: a prospective cohort study of early clinical outcomes and quantitative MRI findings. Sci Rep. 16(1):14161.
Akeda K, Ohishi K, Takegami N, Sudo T, Yamada J, et al. (2022) Platelet-Rich Plasma Releasate versus Corticosteroid for the Treatment of Discogenic Low Back Pain: A Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial. J Clin Med. 11(2):304.
Akeda K, Ohishi K, Masuda K, Bae WC, Takegami N, et al. (2017) Intradiscal Injection of Autologous Platelet-Rich Plasma Releasate to Treat Discogenic Low Back Pain: A Preliminary Clinical Trial. Asian Spine J. 11(3):380-89.
Vadalà G, Russo F, Lavazza C, Petrucci G, Ambrosio L, et al. (2025) Intradiscal Mesenchymal Stromal Cell Therapy for the Treatment of Low Back Pain Due to Moderate-to-Advanced Multilevel Disc Degeneration: A Preliminary Report of a Double-Blind, Phase IIB Randomized Clinical Trial (DREAM Study). JOR Spine. 8(2):e70086.
Pers YM, Soler-Rich R, Vadalà G, Ferreira R, Duflos C, et al. (2024) Allogenic bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stromal cell-based therapy for patients with chronic low back pain: a prospective, multicentre, randomised placebo-controlled trial (RESPINE study). Ann Rheum Dis. 83(11):1572-583.
Hooper N, Ierulli J, Demarest C, Pitts J, Olufade OA, et al. (2025) Long-Term Effectiveness of Intradiscal Culture-Expanded Mesenchymal Stem Cells (MSCs) with Platelet Products for Discogenic Low Back Pain. Biomedicines. 13(10):2365.
Centeno C, Markle J, Dodson E, Stemper I, Williams CJ, et al. (2017) Treatment of lumbar degenerative disc disease-associated radicular pain with culture-expanded autologous mesenchymal stem cells: a pilot study on safety and efficacy. J Transl Med. 15(1):197.
Haines CM, Bhatt FR, Orosz LD, Yamout T, Namian S, et al. (2022) Low Back Pain, Disability, and Quality of Life One Year following Intradiscal Injection of Autologous Bone Marrow Aspirate Concentrate. Stem Cells Int. 2022:9617511.
Pettine KA, Suzuki RK, Sand TT, Murphy MB. (2017) Autologous bone marrow concentrate intradiscal injection for the treatment of degenerative disc disease with three-year follow-up. Int Orthop. 41(10):2097-103.
Kumar H, Ha DH, Lee EJ, Park JH, Shim JH, et al. (2017) Safety and tolerability of intradiscal implantation of combined autologous adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells and hyaluronic acid in patients with chronic discogenic low back pain: 1-year follow-up of a phase I study. Stem Cell Res Ther. 8(1):262.
Comella K, Silbert R, Parlo M. (2017) Effects of the intradiscal implantation of stromal vascular fraction plus platelet rich plasma in patients with degenerative disc disease. J Transl Med. 15(1):12.
Hashemi M, Moemenzadeh S, Taheri M, Dadkhah P, Hojjati S. (2022) Transforaminal Epidural Autologous Conditioned Serum Injection in the Treatment of Unilateral Lumbar Radicular Pain: A Randomized, Controlled, Double-Blind Clinical Trial: Role of ACS on Lumbar Radicular Pain. Galen Med J. 11:e2324.
Homs M, Milà R, Recasens J, Delgado D, Borràs RM, et al. (2025) Efficacy of Autologous Conditioned Serum on the Dorsal Root Ganglion in Patients with Chronic Radicular Pain: Prospective Randomized Placebo-Controlled Double Blind Clinical Trial (RADISAC Trial). J Clin Med. 14(21):7771.
Levi D, Tyszko S, Horn S, Pham N, Levin J. (2025) Bone marrow concentrate intradiscal injection for chronic discogenic low back pain: A double-blind randomized sham-controlled trial. Interv Pain Med. 4(3):100611.
Gupta A, Chhabra HS, Singh V, Nagarjuna D. (2024) Lumbar Transforaminal Injection of Steroids versus Platelet-Rich Plasma for Prolapse Lumbar Intervertebral Disc with Radiculopathy: A Randomized Double-Blind Controlled Pilot Study. Asian Spine J. 18(1):58-65.
Xu Z, Wu S, Li X, Liu C, Fan S, et al. (2021) Ultrasound-Guided Transforaminal Injections of Platelet-Rich Plasma Compared with Steroid in Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Study. Neural Plast. 2021:5558138.
Schepers MO, Groot D, Kleinjan EM, Pol MM, Mylenbusch H, et al. (2022) Effectiveness of intradiscal platelet rich plasma for discogenic low back pain without Modic changes: A randomized controlled trial. Interv Pain Med. 1(1):100011.
Anitua E, Milani I, Martínez À, Cabello F, Prado R, et al. (2025) A Long-Term Retrospective Observational Clinical Study Evaluating the Efficacy of Plasma Rich in Growth Factors (PRGF) in the Treatment of Back Pain. Pain Ther. 14(2):675-90
Wolff M, Shillington JM, Rathbone C, Piasecki SK, Barnes B, et al. (2020) Injections of concentrated bone marrow aspirate as treatment for Discogenic pain: a retrospective analysis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 21(1):135.
Amirdelfan K, Bae H, McJunkin T, DePalma M, Kim K. (2021) et al. Allogeneic mesenchymal precursor cells treatment for chronic low back pain associated with degenerative disc disease: a prospective randomized, placebo-controlled 36-month study of safety and efficacy. Spine J. 21(2):212-30.
Beall DP, Bae HW, DePalma MJ, Amirdelfan K, Tavel E, et al. (2025) Efficacy and safety of allogeneic mesenchymal precursor cells with and without hyaluronic acid for treatment of chronic low back pain: a prospective, randomized, double blind, concurrent-controlled 36-month study. Spine J.;25(9):1997-2013.
Noriega DC, Ardura F, Hernández-Ramajo R, Martín-Ferrero MÁ, Sánchez-Lite I, et al. (2017) Intervertebral Disc Repair by Allogeneic Mesenchymal Bone Marrow Cells: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Transplantation. 101(8):1945-951.
Orozco L, Soler R, Morera C, Alberca M, Sánchez A, et al. (2011) Intervertebral disc repair by autologous mesenchymal bone marrow cells: a pilot study. Transplantation. 92(7):822-28.
Mochida J, Sakai D, Nakamura Y, Watanabe T, Yamamoto Y, et al. (2015) Intervertebral disc repair with activated nucleus pulposus cell transplantation: a three-year, prospective clinical study of its safety. Eur Cell Mater. 29:202-12.
Bise S, Dallaudiere B, Pesquer L, Pedram M, Meyer P, et al. (2020) Comparison of interlaminar CT-guided epidural platelet-rich plasma versus steroid injection in patients with lumbar radicular pain. Eur Radiol. 30(6):3152-160.
Ruiz-Lopez R, Tsai YC. (2020) A Randomized Double-Blind Controlled Pilot Study Comparing Leucocyte-Rich Platelet-Rich Plasma and Corticosteroid in Caudal Epidural Injection for Complex Chronic Degenerative Spinal Pain. Pain Pract. 20(6):639-46.
Wu J, Zhou J, Liu C, Zhang J, Xiong W, et al. (2017) A Prospective Study Comparing Platelet-Rich Plasma and Local Anesthetic (LA)/Corticosteroid in Intra-Articular Injection for the Treatment of Lumbar Facet Joint Syndrome. Pain Pract. 17(7):914-24.
Wu J, Du Z, Lv Y, Zhang J, Xiong W, et al. (2016) A New Technique for the Treatment of Lumbar Facet Joint Syndrome Using Intra-articular Injection with Autologous Platelet Rich Plasma. Pain Phy. 19(8):617-25.
Maal AB, Kordi R, Madani H, Khadivi M, Moghadam N, et al. (2025) Intradiscal injection of allogeneic bone marrow derived clonal mesenchymal stromal cells in discogenic low back pain: a phase I study on safety and feasibility (RELIEF: phase I). Stem Cell Res Ther. 16(1):525.
Elabd C, Centeno CJ, Schultz JR, Lutz G, Ichim T, et al. (2016) Intra-discal injection of autologous, hypoxic cultured bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells in five patients with chronic lower back pain: a long-term safety and feasibility study. J Transl Med. 14:253.
Akeda K, Takegami N, Yamada J, Fujiwara T, Ohishi K, et al. (2022) Platelet-Rich Plasma-Releasate (PRPr) for the Treatment of Discogenic Low Back Pain Patients: Long-Term Follow-Up Survey. Medicina (Kaunas). 58(3):428.
Kawabata S, Hachiya K, Nagai S, Takeda H, Rashid MZM, et al. (2023) Autologous Platelet-Rich Plasma Administration on the Intervertebral Disc in Low Back Pain Patients with Modic Type 1 Change: Report of Two Cases. Medicina (Kaunas). 59(1):112.
Sonkar T, Yadav V, Singh S. (2026) A randomized controlled trial comparing transforaminal injections of Platelet-rich plasma versus steroid for lumbar herniated disc. J Clin Orthop Trauma. 81:103546.
Yoon Y, Hwang JH, Lee J, Lim J, Suryadi T, et al. (2026) Intradiscal Injection of Adinizer-Processed Minimally Microfragmented Adipose Tissue for Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis: A Case Report With a Two-Year Follow-Up. Cureus. 18(4):e107584.
Pitts J, Markle J, Berger D, Dodson E, et al. (2025) Intradiscal Injections of Bone Marrow Concentrate or Leukocyte-Rich Platelet-Rich Plasma for the Treatment of Cervical Discogenic Pain: A Case Series. Cureus. 17(5):e84166.
Paliaroutas OV, Evangelopoulos DS, Vasiliadis E, Stanitsa N, Zouris G, et al. (2025) Role of Platelet-Rich Plasma (PRP) in the Management of Stage III and IV Degenerative Disc Disease. Cureus. 2025;17(2):e79504.
Pérez KDS, Silva NAB, Neader SM, Gómez LA, et al. (2026) Efficacy of Platelet-Rich Plasma Injections Versus Corticosteroid Injections in the Management of Chronic Low Back Pain Secondary to Sacroiliitis. Pain Res Manag. 2026(1):e8179046.
Xiong Y, Gong C, Peng X, Liu X, Su X, et al. (2023) Efficacy and safety of platelet-rich plasma injections for the treatment of osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Front Med (Lausanne). 10:1204144.
Zhao J, Huang H, Liang G, Zeng LF, Yang W, et al. (2020) Effects and safety of the combination of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and hyaluronic acid (HA) in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 21(1):224.
Du D, Liang Y. (2025) A meta-analysis and systematic review of the clinical efficacy and safety of platelet-rich plasma combined with hyaluronic acid (PRP + HA) versus PRP monotherapy for knee osteoarthritis (KOA). J Orthop Surg Res.20(1):57.
Nawaz HMT, Jawwad MA, Khan MU, Qadir MJ, Farooq MO, et al. (2025) Efficacy of Platelet-Rich Plasma Injections in Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Cureus. 17(10):e94288.
Wu Q, Luo X, Xiong Y, Liu G, Wang J, et al. (2020) Platelet-rich plasma versus hyaluronic acid in knee osteoarthritis: A meta-analysis with the consistent ratio of injection. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 28(1):2309499019887660.
McLarnon M, Heron N. (2021) Intra-articular platelet-rich plasma injections versus intra-articular corticosteroid injections for symptomatic management of knee osteoarthritis: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 22(1):550.
Li YF, Xing HH, Wei CK, Chen YT, Sun YQ, et al. (2025) Platelet-Rich Plasma Is More Effective Than Hyaluronic Acid Injections for Osteoarthritis of the Knee: A Meta-analysis Based on Randomized, Double-Blinded, Controlled Clinical Trials. Arthroscopy. 41(12):5304-18.
Sax OC, Chen Z, Mont MA, Delanois RE. (2022) The Efficacy of Platelet-Rich Plasma for the Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis Symptoms and Structural Changes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Arthroplasty. 37(11):2282-2290.e2.
Prodromidis AD, Charalambous CP, Moran E, Venkatesh R, Pandit H, et al. (2022) The role of Platelet-Rich Plasma (PRP) intraarticular injections in restoring articular cartilage of osteoarthritic knees. A systematic review and meta-analysis. Osteoarthr Cartil Open. 4(4):100318.
Bolia IK, Bougioukli S, Hill WJ, Trasolini NA, Petrigliano FA, et al. (2022) Clinical Efficacy of Bone Marrow Aspirate Concentrate Versus Stromal Vascular Fraction Injection in Patients With Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Am J Sports Med. 50(5):1451-61.
Silveira Santiago M, Valeriano Zamora F, Machinski E, da Silva Oliveira Filho AR, Oliveira de Freitas MT, et al. (2024) Clinical Response to Joint Infiltration With Bone Marrow Aspirate in Hip Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review and Single-arm Meta-analysis. Pain Physician. 27(10):E1033-E1044.
Cao M, Ou Z, Sheng R, Wang Q, Chen X, et al. (2025) Efficacy and safety of mesenchymal stem cells in knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Stem Cell Res Ther. 16(1):122
Sadeghirad B, Rehman Y, Khosravirad A, Sofi-Mahmudi A, Zandieh S, et al. (2024) Mesenchymal stem cells for chronic knee pain secondary to osteoarthritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 32(10):1207-219.
Whittle SL, Johnston RV, McDonald S, Worthley D, Campbell TM, et al. (2025) Stem cell injections for osteoarthritis of the knee. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 4:CD013342.
Rahmadian R, Ariliusra Z, Kusuma KRA, Ali H, Raymond B, et al. (2025) Efficacy of a single intra-articular injection of mesenchymal stem cells for knee osteoarthritis: a dose-focused meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Orthop Surg Res. 20(1):812.
Lohrasbi E, Babaie S, Hamedfar H, Pourzeinali S, Farshbaf-Khalili A, et al. (2025) Regenerative Therapy in Osteoarthritis Using Umbilical Cord-Origin Mesenchymal Stem Cells: A Critical Appraisal of Clinical Safety and Efficacy Through Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Stem Cells Int. 2025:4261166.
Xiao Z, Wang X, Li C, Luo L, Li W, et al. (2024) Effects of the umbilical cord mesenchymal stem cells in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 103(46):e40490.
Chen X, Zheng J, Yin L, Li Y, Liu H, et al. (2024) Transplantation of three mesenchymal stem cells for knee osteoarthritis, which cell and type are more beneficial? a systematic review and network meta-analysis. J Orthop Surg Res. 19(1):366.
Tang X, Huang H, Hao L. (2024) Decadal analysis of efficacy and safety profiles of mesenchymal stem cells from varied sources in knee osteoarthritis patients: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. Exp Gerontol. 192:112460.
Wang J, Zhou L, Zhang Y, Huang L, Shi Q, et al. (2020) Mesenchymal stem cells - a promising strategy for treating knee osteoarthritis. Bone Joint Res. 9(10):719-28.
Muthu S, Mir AA, Kumar R, Yadav V, Jeyaraman M, et al. (2022) What is the clinically significant ideal mesenchymal stromal cell count in the management of osteoarthritis of the knee? - Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Clin Orthop Trauma. 25:101744.
Lee DH, Kim SA, Song JS, Shetty AA, Kim BH, et al. (2022) Cartilage Regeneration Using Human Umbilical Cord Blood Derived Mesenchymal Stem Cells: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Medicina (Kaunas). 58(12):1801.
Fucaloro S, Bragg JT, Feldman MW, Krivicich L, Salzler MJ, et al. (2025) Complication rates of bone marrow aspirate concentrate injections versus other injectable therapies for knee osteoarthritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Orthop. 62:36-42.
Yin F, Wu H, Tong D, Luo G, Deng Z. (2025) et al. Contextual effects of mesenchymal stem cell injections for knee osteoarthritis: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Front Med (Lausanne). 12:1636181.
Kong Y, Wang Y, Yang Y, Hou Y, Liu M, et al. (2024) Intra-articular injection of exosomes derived from different stem cells in animal models of osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta- analysis. J Orthop Surg Res. 19(1):834.
Wee TC, Neo EJR, Tan YL. (2021) Dextrose prolotherapy in knee osteoarthritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Orthop Trauma. 19:108-117.
Wang J, Liang J, Yao J, Song HX, Yang XT, et al. (2022) Meta-analysis of clinical trials focusing on hypertonic dextrose prolotherapy (HDP) for knee osteoarthritis. Aging Clin Exp Res. 34(4):715-24.
Sit RW, Chung VCh, Reeves KD, Rabago D, Chan KK, et al. (2016) Hypertonic dextrose injections (prolotherapy) in the treatment of symptomatic knee osteoarthritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sci Rep. 6:25247.
Hung CY, Hsiao MY, Chang KV, Han DS, Wang TG, et al. (2016) Comparative effectiveness of dextrose prolotherapy versus control injections and exercise in the management of osteoarthritis pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Pain Res. 9:847-57.
Cheng HY, Liang CW, Lee YH, Vitoonpong T, Liao CD, et al. (2024) Effects of the combination of various pharmacological treatments and exercise on knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. EFORT Open Rev. 9(7):668-75.
Liao CD, Chen HC, Huang MH, Liou TH, Lin CL, et al. (2023) Comparative Efficacy of Intra-Articular Injection, Physical Therapy, and Combined Treatments on Pain, Function, and Sarcopenia Indices in Knee Osteoarthritis: A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Int J Mol Sci. 24(7):6078.
Curtis A, Beswick A, Jenkins L, Whitehouse M, et al. (2024) Is there a role for autologous conditioned serum injections in osteoarthritis? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 32(10):1197-206.
Raeissadat SA, Rayegani SM, Sohrabi MR, Jafarian N, Bahrami MN, et al. (2021) Effectiveness of intra-articular autologous-conditioned serum injection in knee osteoarthritis: a meta-analysis study. Future Sci OA. 7(9):FSO759.
Santiago MS, Doria FM, Morais Sirqueira Neto J, Fontes FF, Porto ES, et al. (2025) Platelet-rich plasma with versus without hyaluronic acid for hip osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 13:1545431.
Sambe HG, Yasir M, Man RK, Gogikar A, Nanda A, et al. (2023) Comparing Intra-articular Platelet-Rich Plasma With Hyaluronic Acid for the Treatment of Hip Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Cureus. 15(10):e47919.
Ding SL, Ji LF, Zhang MZ, Xiong W, Sun CY, et al. (2023) Safety and efficacy of intra-articular injection of platelet-rich plasma for the treatment of ankle osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int Orthop. 47(8):1963-974.
Ding Q, Wang X, Liu Y, Li Y, Zhang D, et al. (2024) The efficacy of platelet-rich plasma in ankle disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Orthop Surg Res. 19(1):895.
Laohajaroensombat S, Prusmetikul S, Rattanasiri S, Thakkinstian A, Woratanarat P, et al. (2023) Platelet-rich plasma injection for the treatment of ankle osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Orthop Surg Res. 18(1):373.
Peng J, Wang Q, Xu Y, He H, et al. (2023) Platelet-rich plasma treatment for talar cartilage repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 24(1):366.
Rahyussalim AJ, Murti SW, Thenggono R, Calista FAK. (2026) Intradiscal mesenchymal stem cell therapy for degenerative disc disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. Asian Spine J. 20(3):541-57.
Muthu S, Viswanathan VK, Gangadaran P. (2025) Is platelet-rich plasma better than steroids as epidural drug of choice in lumbar disc disease with radiculopathy? Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Exp Biol Med (Maywood). 250:10390.
Wang X, Zhang Y. (2025) Therapeutic interventions of platelet-rich plasma versus corticosteroid injections for lumbar radicular pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Orthop Surg Res. 20(1):306.
Alatefi D, Alkabazi M, Alanzi A, Alsaleh B, Mubaidin SA, et al. (2026) Platelet-Rich Plasma versus Corticosteroid Injections for Facet and Sacroiliac Joint Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis with Trial Sequential Analysis. Pain Med. 2026:pnag072.
Peng B, Xu B, Wu W, Du L, Zhang T, et al. (2023) Efficacy of intradiscal injection of platelet-rich plasma in the treatment of discogenic low back pain: A single-arm meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 102(10):e33112.
Manchikanti L, Knezevic E, Knezevic NN, Kaye AD, Atluri S, et al. (2024) Effectiveness of Intradiscal Regenerative Medicine Therapies for Long-Term Relief of Chronic Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Pain Physician. 27(10):E995-E1032.
Manchikanti L, Abd-Elsayed A, Jin MY, Kaye AD, Sanapati MR, et al. (2026) A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials of Epidural Regenerative Medicine Therapies in Managing Spinal Pain. Curr Pain Headache Rep. 30(1):83.
Sanapati J, Manchikanti L, Atluri S, Jordan S, Albers SL, et al. (2018) Do Regenerative Medicine Therapies Provide Long-Term Relief in Chronic Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review and Metaanalysis. Pain Physician. 21(6):515-40
Singjie LC, Kusuma SA, Saleh I, Kholinne E. (2023) The Potency of Platelet-Rich Plasma for Chronic Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review and Metaanalysis of Randomized Controlled Trial. Asian Spine J. 17(4):782-89.
Zhang X, Zhang A, Guan H, Zhou L, Zhang J. (2023) The Clinical Efficacy of Platelet-Rich Plasma Injection Therapy versus Different Control Groups for Chronic Low Back Pain: A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. J Pain Res. 17:1077-089.
Zhang RE, Aurangzeb A, Sirisena D. (2026) Platelet-rich plasma and stem cell therapies for spondylosis: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Eur Spine J.
Park JH, Jang JN, Park S, Choi YS, Miah R, et al. (2026) Interventional treatments for sacroiliac joint pain: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Reg Anesth Pain Med. rapm-2026-107633.
Mociu SI, Nedelcu AD, Lupu AA, Uzun AB, Iliescu DM, et al. (2025) Prolotherapy as a Regenerative Treatment in the Management of Chronic Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review. Medicina (Kaunas). 61(9):1588.
Peeters CM, Leijs MJ, Reijman M, van Osch GJ, Bos PK, et al. (2013) Safety of intra-articular cell-therapy with culture-expanded stem cells in humans: a systematic literature review. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 21(10):1465-473.
Jeyaraman M, Muthu S, Ganie PA. (2021) Does the Source of Mesenchymal Stem Cell Have an Effect in the Management of Osteoarthritis of the Knee? Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Cartilage. 13(1_suppl):1532S-547S.
Park D, Choi YH, Kang SH, Koh HS, et al. (2023) Bone Marrow Aspirate Concentrate versus Human Umbilical Cord Blood-Derived Mesenchymal Stem Cells for Combined Cartilage Regeneration Procedure in Patients Undergoing High Tibial Osteotomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Medicina (Kaunas). 59(3):634.
Xie RH, Gong SG, Song J, Wu PP, Hu WL, et al. (2024) Effect of mesenchymal stromal cells transplantation on the outcomes of patients with knee osteoarthritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Orthop Res. 42(4):753-68.
Zhang X, Cui C, Lin F. (2024) Efficacy and safety of mesenchymal stem cell injections for knee osteoarthritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Res Med Sci. 29:55.
Deng L, Zhao C, Zhou L, Mu X, Sun H, et al. (2025) Efficacy and safety of single versus repeated injections of mesenchymal stem cells for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Stem Cell Res Ther. 16(1):505.
Zhang Y, Yang H, He F, Zhu X, et al. (2022) Intra-articular injection choice for osteoarthritis: making sense of cell source-an updated systematic review and dual network meta-analysis. Arthritis Res Ther. 24(1):260.
Winter R, Hasiba-Pappas SK, Tuca AC, Zrim R, Nischwitz S, et al. (2023) Autologous Fat and Platelet-Rich Plasma Injections in Trapeziometacarpal Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg. 151(1):119-31.
Evans A, Ibrahim M, Pope R, Mwangi J, Botros M, et al. (2020) Treating hand and foot osteoarthritis using a patient's own blood: A systematic review and meta-analysis of platelet-rich plasma. J Orthop. 18:226-36.
Brophy RH, Fillingham YA. (2022) AAOS Clinical Practice Guideline Summary: Management of Osteoarthritis of the Knee (Nonarthroplasty), Third Edition. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 30(9):e721-e29.
Navani A, Manchikanti L, Albers SL, Latchaw RE, Sanapati J, et al. (2019) Responsible, Safe, and Effective Use of Biologics in the Management of Low Back Pain: American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) Guidelines. Pain Physician. 22(1S):S1-S74.
Wang Z, Hu Z, Niu L, Xu Y, Qi Y, et al. (2025) Mesenchymal stem cell-derived exosomes for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis based on rat model. Front Pharmacol. 16:1588841.

A Comprehensive Meta-Analysis of Orthobiologics in Arthrosis and Lumbar Degeneration: Moderate Symptomatic Benefit, Comparator-Dependent Effects and an Evidence-Tiered Framework for Clinical Practice

A Comprehensive Meta-Analysis of Orthobiologics in Arthrosis and Lumbar Degeneration: Moderate Symptomatic Benefit, Comparator-Dependent Effects and an Evidence-Tiered Framework for Clinical Practice

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Methods

Results

An Evidence-Tiered Framework for Clinical Use

Discussion

Conclusion

Declarations

References

Creative Commons License

Links

Featured Journals

Get In Touch