ArticleOrthopedic reviews2025
Orthobiologic injections for hip osteoarthritis: A systematic review of clinical outcomes.
Article in Orthopedic reviews, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objective: The incidence of hip osteoarthritis (OA) is increasing with the aging population, leading to interest in intra-articular orthobiologic injections to alleviate symptoms and potentially slow disease progression. This systematic review aims to evaluate the clinical outcomes associated with six orthobiologic therapies for hip OA: hyaluronic acid (HA), platelet-rich plasma (PRP), autologous cells therapy (ACT), microfragmented adipose tissue (MFAT), and bone marrow aspirate (BMA) and its concentration (BMAC). Methods: We conducted a literature search according to the PRISMA guidelines. Studies were included in our review if they used at least one of the four orthobiologic therapies and reported on the clinical outcome using patient reported outcome measures (PROMs). Since there is a large variability among clinical outcomes, we focused on the three most utilized PROMs (VAS, WOMAC, and HHS) and the latest follow-up time point. Results: Of the 716 studies reviewed, thirty-six studies (n=36) fit inclusion criteria. There were 21 studies examining HA, 11 on PRP, 3 for MFAT, 2 for ACT, and 3 on BMA/BMAC. Eight studies were randomized controlled trials and 28 were cohort studies. The mean age of the patient population ranged from 45 ± 17.0 to 74 ± 8.0. The baseline grade of osteoarthritis ranged from 1-4 but was most reported as moderate (2-3). Overall, there was an improvement in PROMs at the latest follow-up after receiving orthobiologic interventions. Discussion: Orthobiologic injections have shown promise for improving PROMs in patients with hip OA. Future studies should evaluate long-term efficacy and include randomized trials to establish efficacy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.