Preprint Review Version 1 Preserved in Portico This version is not peer-reviewed

Methodological Flaws in Meta-Analyses of Clinical Studies on the Management of Knee Osteoarthritis with Stem Cells: a Systematic Review

Version 1 : Received: 7 February 2022 / Approved: 9 February 2022 / Online: 9 February 2022 (10:57:45 CET)

How to cite: Schmitz, C.; Alt, C.; Pearce, D.A.; Furia, J.P.; Maffulli, N.; Alt, E.U. Methodological Flaws in Meta-Analyses of Clinical Studies on the Management of Knee Osteoarthritis with Stem Cells: a Systematic Review. Preprints 2022, 2022020136. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202202.0136.v1 Schmitz, C.; Alt, C.; Pearce, D.A.; Furia, J.P.; Maffulli, N.; Alt, E.U. Methodological Flaws in Meta-Analyses of Clinical Studies on the Management of Knee Osteoarthritis with Stem Cells: a Systematic Review. Preprints 2022, 2022020136. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202202.0136.v1

Abstract

Background: Conclusions of meta-analyses of clinical studies may substantially influence opinions of perspective patients and stakeholders in health care. Nineteen meta-analyses of clinical studies on the management of primary knee osteoarthritis (pkOA) with stem cells, published between January 2020 and July 2021, came to inconsistent conclusions regarding the efficacy of this treatment modality. It is possible that a separate meta-analysis based on an independent, systematic assessment of clinical studies on the management of pkOA with stem cells may reach a different conclusion. Methods: PubMed, Web of Science and the Cochrane library were systematically searched for clinical studies and meta-analyses of clinical studies on the management of pkOA with stem cells. All clinical studies and meta-analyses identified were evaluated in detail, as were all sub-analyses included in the meta-analyses. Results: The inconsistent conclusions regarding the efficacy of treating pkOA with stem cells in the 19 assessed meta-analyses were most probably based on substantial differences in literature search strategies among different authors, misconceptions about meta-analyses themselves, and misconceptions about the biology of stem cells. An independent, systematic review of the literature yielded a total of 183 studies, of which 33 were randomized clinical trials, including a total of 6860 patients with pkOA. However, it was not possible to perform a scientifically sound meta-analysis. Conclusion: Clinicians should interpret the results of the 19 assessed meta-analyses of clinical studies on the management of pkOA with stem cells with caution, and should be cautious of the conclusions drawn therein. Clinicians and researchers should strive to participate in FDA and/or EMA reviewed and approved clinical trials to provide clinically and statistically valid efficacy.

Keywords

meta-analyses; primary knee osteoarthritis; stem cells; systematic review

Subject

Medicine and Pharmacology, Orthopedics and Sports Medicine

Comments (0)

We encourage comments and feedback from a broad range of readers. See criteria for comments and our Diversity statement.

Leave a public comment
Send a private comment to the author(s)
* All users must log in before leaving a comment
Views 0
Downloads 0
Comments 0
Metrics 0


×
Alerts
Notify me about updates to this article or when a peer-reviewed version is published.
We use cookies on our website to ensure you get the best experience.
Read more about our cookies here.