Delgado et al.2222 Delgado DA, Lambert BS, Boutris N, McCulloch PC, Robbins AB, Moreno MR, et al. Validation of digital visual analog scale pain scoring with a traditional paper-based visual analog scale in adults. J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev 2018;2(3):e088.
|
1. WOMAC Pain level (0‒20) (p=0.76)
a. D-PRL: 14.6 ± 1.4
b. PRP: 14.8 ± 1.5
2. WOMAC Stiffness (0‒8) (p= 0.73)
a. D-PRL: 5.2 ± 1.3
b. PRP: 5.4 ± 1.2
3. WOMAC Functional limitations (0‒68) (p=0.81)
a. D-PRL: 43.3 ± 6.7
b. PRP: 47.8 ± 4.7
4. Total WOMAC (0‒96) (p=0.75)
a. D-PRL: 67.1 ± 7.9
b. PRP: 67.9 ± 7.3
|
6 months:
a. D-PRL: 14.6 ± 1.4
b. PRP: 14.8 ± 1.5
2. WOMAC Stiffness (0‒8) (p =0.73)
a. D-PRL: 5.2 ± 1.3
b. PRP: 5.4 ± 1.2
3. WOMAC Functional limitations (0‒68) (p=0.81)
a. D-PRL: 43.3 ± 6.7
b. PRP: 47.8 ± 4.7
4. Total WOMAC (0‒96) (p= 0.75)
a. D-PRL: 67.1 ± 7.9
b. PRP: 67.9 ± 7.3
|
PRP was more effective when compared to D-PRL and no significant side effects was observed |
Not reported |
Boonstra et al.2323 Boonstra AM, Schiphorst HR, Reneman MF, Posthumus JB, Stewart RE. Reliability and validity of the visual analogue scale for disability in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain Boonstra, Anne M.; Schiphorst Preuper, Henrica R.; Reneman, Michiel F.; Posthumus, Jitze B.; Stewart, Roy E Int J Rehabil Res 2008;31 (2):165–9.
|
1. Total WOMAC (0‒96) (p=0.761)
a. D-PRL: 68.7 (11.4)
b. Saline: 69.2 (17.6)
c. CG: 68.9 (11.9)
2. VAS Pain activity (0‒10) (p=0.045)
a. D-PRL: 7.2 (1.0)
b. Saline: 7.4 (2.0)
c. CG: 7.0 (0.9)
3. SF-36 PCS (0‒100) (p=0.159)
a. D-PRL: 34.1 (8.9)
b. Saline: 30 (7.4)
c. CG: 35 (9.3)
|
18 weeks:
1. Total WOMAC (0‒96)
a. D-PRL: 32.7 (11.6)
b. Saline: 46.7 (13.5)
c. CG: 59.8 (10.7)
2. VAS Pain activity (0‒10)
a. D-PRL: 1.1 (1.9)
b. Saline: 4.6 (1.8)
c. CG: 4.5 (2.0)
3. SF-36 PCS (0‒100)
a. D-PRL: 48.5 (7.5)
b. Saline: 39.6 (8.5)
c. CG: 41.1 (11.7)
|
D-PRL may become a promising method for KOA treatment |
Scientific Research Projects Unit of the Istanbul University (ID: 41877) |
Rejeski et al.2525 Rejeski WJ, Ettinger WHJ, Shumaker S, Heuser MD, James P, Monu J, et al. The evaluation of pain in patients with knee osteoarthritis: the knee pain scale. J Rheumatol 1995;22(6):1124–9.
|
1. VAS Subjective pain (0‒10) (p=0.125)
a. D-PRL: 6.5 (1.3)
b. Physical therapy: 7.2 (1.1)
c. Botulinum neurotoxin: 6.6 (1.6)
d. HA: 6.7 (0.7)
2. KOOS (0-100) (p=0.111)
a. D-PRL: 99.4 (13.7)
b. Physical therapy: 94 (15.1)
c. Botulinum neurotoxin: 93.3 (16.8)
d. HA: 89.9 (14.3)
|
3 months:
1. VAS Subjective pain: Botulinum neurotoxin and D-PRL were better pain management therapies, while HA was the least efficient method
2. KOOS: Botulinum neurotoxin and D-PRL scores were reduced more than physical therapy (non-statistically significant difference), while HA was the least efficient method
|
D-PRL or botulinum neurotoxin type A could be effective first-line treatments. Physical therapy can be useful if patient is not willing to continue regular therapeutic programs |
None |
Vaishya et al.2020 Vaishya R, Pariyo GB, Agarwal AK, Vijay V. Non-operative management of osteoarthritis of the knee joint. J Clin Orthop Traum 2016;7(3):170–6. [Internet].
|
1. WOMAC Pain level (p =0.73)
a. D-PRL: 66.8 (14.9)
b. Saline: 62.7 (14.3)
c. EP: 63.2 (13.1)
2. WOMAC Stiffness (p=0.49)
a. D-PRL: 57.1 (19.9)
b. Saline: 53.9 (14.2)
c. EP: 55.3 (18.0)
3. WOMAC Functional limitations (p=0.73)
a. D-PRL: 65.2 (15.8)
b. Saline: 67.6 (17.5)
c. EP: 61.9 (12.7)
4. Total WOMAC (p =0.73)
a. D-PRL: 63.1 (15.0)
b. Saline: 62.7 (14.3)
c. EP: 60.5 (11.3)
|
52 weeks:
1. WOMAC Pain level mean score change
a. D-PRL: 14.18 (SE 3.62)
b. Saline: 7.38 (SE 3.67)
c. EP: 9.24 (SE 3.63)
2. WOMAC Stiffness mean score change
a. D-PRL: 15.55 (SE 4.66)
b. Saline: 9.97 (SE 3.67)
c. EP: 8.31 (SE 4.68)
3. WOMAC Functional limitations mean score change (p < 0.001)
a. D-PRL: 16.25 (SE 3.39)
b. Saline: 5.46 (SE 3.44)
c. EP: 7.31 (SE 3.4)
4. Total WOMAC mean score change (p= 0.022)
a. D-PRL: 15.32 (SE 3.32)
b. Saline: 7.59 (SE 3.36)
c. EP: 8.24 (SE 3.33)
|
D-PRL was more effective when compared to Saline and EP |
National Institutes of Health: National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (5K23AT001879-02) |
Copsey et al.2121 Copsey B, Thompson JY, Vadher K, Ali U, Dutton SJ, Fitzpatrick R, et al. Problems persist in reporting of methods and results for the WOMAC measure in hip and knee osteoarthritis trials. Qual life Res an Int J Qual life Asp Treat Care Rehabil 2019;28 (2):335–43.
|
1. VAS Subjective pain (0‒10) (p=0.349)
a. D-PRL: 7.11 (1.03)
b. Erythropoietin: 6.65 (0.96)
c. Pulsed radiofrequency: 7.08 (1.08)
2. ROM (p=0.339)
a. D-PRL: 101 (1.36)
b. Erythropoietin: 98.08 (1.60)
c. Pulsed radiofrequency: 95 (1.97)
|
12 weeks:
1. VAS Subjective pain (0‒10) (p= 0.002)
a. D-PRL: 5.53 (1.60)
b. Erythropoietin: 3.50 (1.23)
c. Pulsed radiofrequency: 5.50 (1.93)
2. ROM (p=0.039)
a. D-PRL: 113 (2.16)
b. Erythropoietin: 123 (1.53)
c. Pulsed radiofrequency: 113 (2.16)
|
Erythropoietin was more effective than D-PRL or pulsed radiofrequency |
Not reported |
Fransen and Edmonds2626 Fransen M, Edmonds J. Reliability and validity of the EuroQol in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee. Rheumatology 1999;38(9):807–13. [Internet].
|
1. VAS Pain instensity (0‒10)
a. D-PRL: 7.8 ± 1.4
b. HA: 8.2 ± 1.7
2. Total WOMAC (0‒96)
a. D-PRL: 52.7 ± 9.8
b. HA: 55.9 ± 10.4
|
1. VAS Pain intensity (0‒10) (p= 0.02)
a. D-PRL: 2.5 ± 1.1
b. HA: 2.1 ± 0.6
2. Total WOMAC (0‒96) (p < 0.001)
a. D-PRL: 83.7 ± 12.7
b. HA: 88.5 ± 15.6
|
Both methods had positive results, but HA was more effective than D-PRL in pain and symptoms control |
Not reported |
Roos and Lohmander2727 Roos EM, Lohmander LS. The knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score (KOOS): from joint injury to osteoarthritis. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2003;1:64.
|
1. VAS Pain activity (0‒96) (p=0.120)
a. D-PRL: 67.00 (2.50)
b. PRP: 61.10 (1.21)
c. Autologus Conditioned Serum: 61.25 (3.44)
2. Total WOMAC (0‒96) (p=0.103)
a. D-PRL: 65.93 (1.67)
b. PRP: 60.33 (3.70)
c. Autologus Conditioned Serum: 56.28 (3.13)
|
6 months:
1. VAS Pain activity (0‒96)
a. D-PRL: 63.30 (2.92)
b. PRP: 55.00 (2.27)
c. Autologus Conditioned Serum: 35.00 (3.51)
2. Total WOMAC (0‒96)
a. D-PRL: 72.33 (2.57)
b. PRP: 45.67 (3.82)
c. Autologus Conditioned Serum: 34.88 (3.35)
|
Autologus conditioned serum and PRP are more effective than D-PRL |
Physical Medicine and rehabilitation Reseach center, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences (Grant no. 63138) |
5. VAS Pain intensity:
Difference between groups: -10.98 (-21.36 to -0.61)*
|
1. WOMAC Pain
a. D-PRL: 49.9 (23.1)
b. Saline: 44.0 (20.4)
2. WOMAC Stiffness
a. D-PRL:48.0 (26.3)
b. Saline: 46.8 (27.0)
3. WOMAC Function
a. D-PRL: 49.0 (21.8)
b. Saline: 45.9 (22.1)
4. Total WOMAC
a. D-PRL: 49.1 (21.8)
b. Saline: 45.6 (21.2)
5. VAS Pain intensity
a. D-PRL: 63.1 (21.2)
b. Saline: 60.1 (19.2)
|
52 weeks:
1. WOMAC Pain level Difference between groups: -10.34 (-19.20 to -1.49)*
2. WOMAC Stiffness Difference between groups: -8.01 (-18.56 to 2.54)
3. WOMAC Function limitations Difference between groups: -9.55 (-17.72 to -1.39)*
4. Total WOMAC
Difference between groups: -9.65 (-17.77 to -1.53)*
*p < 0.05
|
D-PRL may be appropriate care for patients with KOA refractory to more conservative care |
Chinese University of Hong Kong Direct Grant for Research 2013-14 (HKD 40,000) |