Re: Effectiveness of platelet-rich plasma in the management of hip osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- PDF / 152,520 Bytes
- 2 Pages / 595.276 x 790.866 pts Page_size
- 74 Downloads / 127 Views
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Re: Effectiveness of platelet-rich plasma in the management of hip osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis: authors’ reply Ivan Medina-Porqueres 1,3
&
Miguel Ortega-Castillo 2
&
Alfonso Muriel-Garcia 2,4
Received: 15 September 2020 / Revised: 15 September 2020 / Accepted: 21 September 2020 # International League of Associations for Rheumatology (ILAR) 2020
We thank Sharun and Pawde [1] for their interest in our recent paper regarding the effectiveness of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) in the management of hip osteoarthritis (OA) [2]. We greatly appreciate their comments as an opportunity to claim a homogeneity movement in PRP research. This correspondence provides valuable insight regarding the complexity of the PRP concept. They correctly noted that our meta-analysis study included four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) [3–6] and suggested PRP to be a beneficial and safe option for patients with hip OA; however, its superiority over other intraarticular procedures remains unclear. Admittedly, there is a paucity of high-level studies within our work mainly related to a very small body of literature identified at the time of submission rather than the quality of the selected papers. Several attempts to classify PRP procedures have been made by the scientific community over the last two decades, none of them achieving widespread use or universal acceptance [7]. We share with Sharun and Pawde views underlying that efficacy of PRP is highly dependent upon its composition [1]. Moreover, this composition relies on the procedure employed for its production. We accept the fact that PRP is not a simple element, but a complex product from multiple possible origins. * Ivan Medina-Porqueres [email protected] Miguel Ortega-Castillo [email protected] Alfonso Muriel-Garcia [email protected] 1
University of Malaga, Faculty of Health Sciences, Department of Physical Therapy, Malaga, Spain
2
University of Alcala, Faculty of Health Sciences, Department of Nursing and Physical Therapy, Alcala, Spain
3
Malaga Football Club, Medical Services, Malaga, Spain
4
Ramon y Cajal Hospital, Madrid, Spain
Hereof, we would agree in considering it a procedure rather than a product. The inherent differences in PRP terminology and commercial preparations may be behind the variability in observed clinical results among published trials. Therefore, from a statistical point of view, PRP is not a constant but a variable comprised by several variables itself. Generalizability of results is a well-known, recognized goal in clinical research whose main cornerstone is homogeneity. Different procedures for obtaining PRP or the use of a given PRP preparation in different scenarios implies heterogeneity and, thus, invalidity of results [8]. We feel that several physiological questions from basic science should be addressed prior a solid recommendation can be made. In the meantime, clinical evidence will be the branch we all cling to in this sea of ignorance. With that, attending Sharun and Pawde request [1] and Kon et a
Data Loading...
