Authors |
Country |
Study design |
Number of participants |
Average age (years) |
Intervention |
Duration |
Outcomes measured |
Dallari et al. [21] |
Italy |
RCT |
80 (PRP = 44, HA = 36) |
NR |
Autologous PRP (5 mL) versus HA (30 mg/2 mL) |
12 months |
Therapeutic efficacy of autologous PRP; therapeutic efficacy of HA |
Di Sante et al. [22] |
Italy |
RCT |
43 (PRP = 21, HA = 22) |
PRP = 71.37±6.03, HA = 73.62±7.87 |
Na-HA (30 mg/2 mL) versus PRP (3 mL) |
16 weeks |
Pain reduction was measured by VAS; pain reduction was measured by WOMAC pain scale |
Kraeutler et al. [24] |
USA |
Double-blind, randomized pilot study |
31 (PRP = 18, HA = 13) |
PRP = 53.3±8.4, HA = 53.6±7.6 |
Lp PRP (1-2 mL) versus LMW HA (2.5 mL) |
12 weeks |
Efficacy of intra-articular injection of Lp PRP; efficacy of intra-articular injections of LMW HA |
Villanova-López et al. [26] |
Spain |
Phase III double-blinded, controlled trial |
74 (PRP = 38, HA = 36) |
PRP = 61.2±9.72, HA = 61.1±12.3 |
PRP (6 mL) versus HA (60 mg/6 mL) |
12 months |
Pain was assessed using VAS score; HHS score was used as functional score; WOMAC score was used as functional score; analgesia, adverse events, cellular components in peripheral blood, cellular components in PRP, and clinical response were assessed using OARSI criteria |
Nouri et al. [25] |
Iran |
RCT with three parallel groups |
70 (PRP = 35, HA = 35) |
PRP = 58.22±5.10, HA = 60.93±4.54 |
PRP 5 mL versus HMW HA 50 mg/2.5 mL |
Two injections within two weeks' interval |
VAS; WOMAC; Lequesne questionnaire |
Doria et al. [23] |
Italy |
Prospective double-blinded RCT |
80 (PRP = 40, HA = 40) |
PRP = 67.3±5.8, HA = 68±4.6 |
PRP 5 mL versus HA (15 mg/mL) |
12 weeks |
VAS; WOMAC |
Battaglia et al. [20] |
Italy |
RCT |
100 (PRP = 50, HA = 50) |
PRP = 51±12, HA = 56±12 |
Autologous PRP (5 mL) versus HMW HA (30 mg/2 mL) |
12 months |
HHS; VAS |