↓ Skip to main content

Proliferative injection therapy for osteoarthritis: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in International Orthopaedics, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
68 Mendeley
Title
Proliferative injection therapy for osteoarthritis: a systematic review
Published in
International Orthopaedics, February 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00264-017-3422-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mišo Krstičević, Milka Jerić, Svjetlana Došenović, Antonia Jeličić Kadić, Livia Puljak

Abstract

To systematically analyse randomised controlled trials (RCTs) about efficacy and safety of proliferative injection therapy (prolotherapy) for treatment of osteoarthritis (OA). CENTRAL, Embase and MEDLINE were searched. Two reviewers independently conducted screening and data extraction. RCTs were assessed with the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Type of treatment, study design, dosing, efficacy outcomes and safety outcomes were analysed. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42016035258). Seven RCTs were included, with 393 participants aged 40-75 years and mean OA pain duration from three months to eight years. Follow-up was 12 weeks to 12 months. Studies analysed OA of the knee joint (n = 5), first carpometacarpal joint (n = 1) and finger joints (n = 1). Various types of prolotherapy were used; dextrose was the most commonly used irritant agent. All studies concluded that prolotherapy was effective treatment for OA. No serious adverse events were reported. The studies had considerable methodological limitations. Limited evidence from low-quality studies indicates a beneficial effect of prolotherapy for OA management. The number of participants in these studies was too small to provide reliable evidence. Current data from trials about prolotherapy for OA should be considered preliminary, and future high-quality trials on this topic are warranted.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 68 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 12%
Student > Bachelor 6 9%
Researcher 5 7%
Other 4 6%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 4 6%
Other 13 19%
Unknown 28 41%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 7%
Neuroscience 2 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 1%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 1%
Other 6 9%
Unknown 29 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 October 2018.
All research outputs
#2,846,709
of 22,988,380 outputs
Outputs from International Orthopaedics
#75
of 1,456 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#62,496
of 424,289 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Orthopaedics
#1
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,988,380 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,456 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 424,289 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.