Corrigendum to ‘The Efficacy of Platelet-Rich Plasma for the Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis Symptoms and Structural Changes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis’ [The Journal of Arthroplasty 37(2022) 2282-2290.e2

Abstract

The authors regret that we have noted in our recently published report entitled “The Efficacy of Platelet-Rich Plasma for the Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis Symptoms and Structural Changes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis” [1] that we inadvertently put the heterogeneity P-values in the text, instead of using the “test for overall effect” P-value found in the Figures, which are now corrected. In each Figure, there were tests for both heterogeneity as well as overall effects with P-values. This led to a few clarifying corrections in the body of the manuscript as follows: In the Abstract, Results Section, the 2nd and 3rd lines should read: However, PRP did not lead to VAS improvements in the pooled meta-analysis comparison. In the Abstract, Results Section, the 6th line should read: No differences were found when assessing structural changes or cartilage thickness by magnetic resonance imaging (standardized mean difference − 0.01 [−0.19, 0.18], P = .95). In the Results Section, PRP versus HA Section, second paragraph, the 1st line should read: There were eight of these studies reporting VAS scores with most demonstrating reduced pain at final follow-up among the PRP cohort [18,29,31,35,37]. In the Results Section, PRP versus HA section, second paragraph, the 6th, 7th, and 10th lines should read: Although insignificant, pooled analysis from seven studies demonstrated improved VAS scores among PRP when compared to HA cohorts (MD, 0.66 [95% CI, 1.43, 0.11]; P < .09) (Fig. 2). In the Results Section, PRP versus CS Section, third paragraph, the 3rd line should read: Pooled analysis from the 6 studies demonstrated significantly improved VAS scores among PRP as compared to CS (MD, −1.29 [95% CI, −2.31, −0.28]; P = .01) (Fig. 4). In the Results Section, PRP versus NS Section, third paragraph, the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd lines should read: Pooled analysis from three studies demonstrated insignificant improvement of VAS scores among PRP as compared to NS cohorts (MD, −1.14 [95% CI, −2.49, 0.20]; P = .10) (Fig. 6). In the Results Section, PRP versus NS Section, fifth paragraph, the 3rd line should read: Pooled analysis from four studies demonstrated significantly improved total WOMAC scores among PRP as compared to NS cohorts (MD, −15.45 [95% CI, −25.23, −5.66]; P = .002) (Fig. 7). In the Results Section, Summary of PRP versus NS Section, first paragraph, the 1st line should read: In summary, most studies comparing PRP to NS demonstrated improved VAS and total WOMAC scores among PRP recipients. In the Results Section, PRP versus Exercise Therapy Section, second paragraph, the 1st line should read: All three studies reported VAS scores, with two reports demonstrating superior outcomes among PRP cohorts. In the Results Section, PRP Structural Changes Section, third paragraph, the 4th line should read: Pooled analysis from three studies demonstrated no significant differences in cartilage thickness as assessed by MRI among PRP relative to comparative groups (MD, −0.01 [95% CI, −0.19, 0.18]; P = .95) (Fig. 8). Zhongming Chen, MD, Sandeep S. Bains, MD, DC, MBA, Oliver C. Sax, DO, MS, Michael A. Mont, MD, and Ronald E. Delanois, MD [1] Sax OC, Chen Z, Mont MA, Delanois RE. The efficacy of platelet-rich plasma for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis symptoms and structural changes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Arthroplasty 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2022.05.014. The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused. The Efficacy of Platelet-Rich Plasma for the Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis Symptoms and Structural Changes: A Systematic Review and Meta-AnalysisThe Journal of ArthroplastyVol. 37Issue 11PreviewPlatelet-rich plasma (PRP) usage in orthopedics continues to rise, despite guidelines suggesting non-superiority to comparative cohorts. Therefore, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis on PRP efficacy using two clinical assessments: (1) Visual Analog Scale and (2) Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index. We assessed consistency and clinical relevancy by determining study heterogeneity (eg, sample sizes, ages, body mass index, arthritic severities, etc.). Comparative cohorts were: (A) hyaluronic acid (HA); (B) corticosteroid (CS); (C) normal saline (NS); and (D) exercise therapy. Full-Text PDF