ReviewOrthopaedic journal of sports medicine2026
Disparities in Evidence and Media Portrayal of Injectable Orthobiologics for Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review of Randomized Trials and News Media.
Review in Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Injectable orthobiologics such as platelet-rich plasma (PRP), mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs), and autologous protein solution (APS) have gained popularity as regenerative options for knee osteoarthritis (OA). Despite widespread clinical and public interest, evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) remains heterogeneous, and public understanding may be shaped more by media representation than by data-driven evidence. Purpose: To synthesize the current evidence on injectable orthobiologics for knee OA and evaluate whether media portrayals align with the strength and quality of available clinical evidence. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 1. Methods: A dual-pronged systematic review was performed on March 31, 2025, following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science were searched for RCTs comparing injectable orthobiologics (PRP, MSCs, APS) versus placebo (saline or sham) in knee OA. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. In parallel, the Factiva database was searched for English-language news articles reporting on injectable orthobiologics for knee OA. Extracted variables included biologic type, benefits and drawbacks discussed, and tone (favorable, neutral, or cautionary). Results: Of 869 articles, 14 RCTs met the inclusion criteria. Eight demonstrated significant improvements in pain and 10 in function following orthobiologic injections, although heterogeneity and risk of bias were frequent. The media review identified 124 relevant articles from 3482 potential articles: 79.0% highlighted therapeutic benefits, only 29.8% mentioned drawbacks, and 37.1% used the term Conclusion: Our review showed that while RCT evidence remains inconsistent, media portrayals of orthobiologics are predominantly positive, often lacking nuance or acknowledgment of uncertainty. This disconnect may encourage unrealistic expectations and premature adoption of these therapies.
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.