Skip to main content

Table 3 WOMAC, KOOS, Tegner, Lequesne, IKDC, and SF-36 scores

From: Is local platelet-rich plasma injection clinically superior to hyaluronic acid for treatment of knee osteoarthritis? A systematic review of randomized controlled trials

Study Pretreatment Early (0–6 wk) Middle (6–12 wk) Late (12–26 wk) Extended (26–52 wk)
Cerza et al. [22] ACP: WOMAC 76.9 ± 9.5 ACP: WOMAC 49.6 ± 17.7
ES: 2.8
ACP: WOMAC 39.1 ± 17.8 ACP: WOMAC 36.5 ± 17.9 DNC
  HA: WOMAC 55.2 ± 12.3 ES: 4.0 ES: 4.3  
HA: WOMAC 75.4 ± 10.7 ES: 1.9
(P < 0.001) between groups
HA: WOMAC 57 ± 11.7 HA: WOMAC 65.1 ± 10.6  
   ES: 1.7
(P < 0.001) between groups
ES: 1.0
(P < 0.001) between groups
 
Filardo et al. [11] PRP: IKDC score 50.2 ± 15.7 DNC PRP: IKDC score 62.8 ± 17.6
ES: 0.8
PRP: IKDC score 64.3 ± 16.4
ES: 0.9
PRP: IKDC score 64.9 ± 16.8
ES: 0.9
KOOS symptoms 64.0 ± 17.9   KOOS symptoms 71.9 ± 17.0
ES: 0.4
KOOS symptoms 73.0 ± 18.3
ES: 0.5
KOOS symptoms 71.3 ± 17.9
ES: 0.4
Pain 65.4 ± 17.7   Pain 71.9 ± 17.0
ES: 0.4
Pain 74.2 ± 19.6
ES: 0.5
Pain 74.0 ± 19.4
ES: 0.5
ADL 69.9 ± 20.0   ADL 81.2 ± 17.9
ES: 0.6
ADL 79.1 ± 19.0
ES: 0.5
ADL 77.9 ± 20.6
ES: 0.4
Sport 37.6 ± 24.7   Sport 48.8 ± 25.9
ES: 0.5
Sport 48.7 ± 29.5
ES: 0.5
Sport 47.4 ± 28.2
ES: 0.4
QOL 34.9 ± 18.8   QOL 48.8 ± 25.9
ES: 0.7
QOL 48.0 ± 23.1
ES: 0.7
QOL 50.5 ± 22.6
ES: 0.8
Tegner score 2.9 ± 1.4     Tegner score 3.8 ± 1.3 ES: 0.6
HA: IKDC score 47.4 ± 15.7   HA: IKDC score 61.4 ± 16.2 HA: IKDC score 61.0 ± 18.2 HA: IKDC score 61.7 ± 19.0
   ES: 0.9 ES: 0.9 ES: 0.9
KOOS   KOOS KOOS KOOS
Symptoms 67.8 ± 15.7   Symptoms 71.6 ± 16.3
ES: 0.2
Symptoms 74.3 ± 16.0
ES: 0.4
Symptoms 74.2 ± 17.5
ES: 0.4
Pain 63.1 ± 17.4   Pain 71.1 ± 18.6
ES: 0.5
Pain 73.2 ± 18.1
ES: 0.6
Pain 74.0 ± 19.4
ES: 0.6
ADL 67.8 ± 21.0   ADL 78.2 ± 17.4
ES: 0.5
ADL 77.3 ± 18.6
ES: 0.5
ADL 77.3 ± 19.8
ES: 0.5
Sport 34.2 ± 23.9   Sport 45.0 ± 24.1
ES: 0.5
Sport 44.7 ± 27.8
ES: 0.5
Sport 46.6 + −27.9
ES: 0.5
QOL 33.6 ± 18.0   QOL 45.5 ± 23.9
ES: 0.7
QOL 48.5 ± 24.7
ES: 0.8
QOL 49.2 ± 26.0
ES: 0.9
Tegner score 2.6 ± 1.2     Tegner score 3.4 ± 1.6
ES: 0.7
     P values not recorded
Sanchez et al. [24] PRGF: WOMAC DNC DNC PRGF: WOMAC 74.0 ± 42.7
ES: 1.1
DNC
121.8 ± 44.4    38.2% of patients had 50% decrease in WOMAC pain score 57.3% of patients had 20% decrease in WOMAC pain score  
Lequesne 9.5 ± 3.0    Lequesne 5.2 ± 3.4
ES: 1.4
 
HA: WOMAC    HA: WOMAC 78.3 ± 48.1  
115.6 ± 45.1    ES: 0.8  
    24.1% of patients had 50% decrease in WOMAC pain score, 52.9% of patients had 20% decrease in WOMAC pain score DNC
Lequesne 9.1 ± 3.2    Lequesne 5.4 ± 3.3
ES: 1.2
 
    Differences between PRGF and HA for 50% decrease in WOMAC pain score (P = 0.044), for 20% decrease (P = 0.555), for total WOMAC score (P = 0.561), and for Lequesne score (P = 0.714)  
Vaquerizo et al. [25] PRGF: WOMAC 45.9 ± 12.7
Lequesne 12.8 ± 3.8
HA: WOMAC 50.8 ± 18.4
Lequesne 13.1 ± 38
DNC DNC For patients with 30% decrease in: WOMAC summed score: rate of response of PRGF was 66, 43, and 23 percentage points higher than that of HA for pain, physical function and stiffness, respectively (P < 0.001, P < 0.001, P = 0.02, respectively). Lequesne score: PRGF group is 56 percentage points higher than HA group (P < 0.001) For patients with 50% decrease in: WOMAC summed score: rate of response of PRGF was 43, 29, and 19 percentage points higher than that of HA for pain, physical function and stiffness, respectively (P < 0.001, P = 0.001, P = 0.035, respectively). Lequesne score: PRGF group is 25 percentage points higher than HA group (P = 0.002) For patients with 30% decrease in: WOMAC summed score: rate of response of PRGF was 46, 37, and 40 percentage points higher than that of HA for pain, physical function and stiffness, respectively (P < .001, P < .001, P < 0.001, respectively). Lequesne score: PRGF group 46 percentage points higher than HA group (P < 0.001) For patients with 50% decrease in: WOMAC summed score: rate of response of PRGF was 29, 31, and 28 percentage points higher than that of HA for pain, physical function and stiffness, respectively (P < 0.001, P < 0.001, P = 0.001, respectively). Lequesne score: 19 and 2 percentage points in the PRGF and HA groups, respectively
Filardo et al. [23] PRP: IKDC score 52.4 ± 14.1 DNC PRP: IKDC score 63.2 ± 16.6
ES: 0.8
PRP: IKDC score 65.0 ± 16.1
ES: 0.9
PRP: IKDC score 66.2 ± 16.7
ES: 1.0
KOOS Symptoms 65.5 ± 16.6   KOOS Symptoms 72.9 ± 17.0
ES: 0.4
KOOS Symptoms 74.7 ± 16.9
ES: 0.6
KOOS Symptoms 73.9 ± 17.2
ES: 0.5
Pain 66.1 ± 17.9   Pain 73.8 ± 19.9
ES: 0.4
Pain 74.7 ± 19.3
ES: 0.5
Pain 74.9 ± 19.3
ES: 0.5
ADL 70.6 ± 19.4   ADL 79.0 ± 19.8
ES: 0.4
ADL 79.1 ± 19.6
ES: 0.4
ADL 78.4 ± 20.7
ES: 0.4
Sport 37.9 ± 25.0   Sport 48.0 ± 26.1
ES: 0.4
Sport 49.6 ± 28.6
ES: 0.5
Sport 49.3 ± 28.6
ES: 0.5
QOL 36.0 ± 19.4   QOL 48.4 ± 23.1
ES: 0.6
QOL 49.2 ± 23.4
ES: 0.7
QOL 50.8 ± 24.0
ES: 0.8
EQ VAS score 73.2 ± 12.0   EQ VAS score 76.3 ± 12.7 EQ VAS score 76.2 ± 12.9 EQ VAS score 77.6 ± 11.1
   ES: 0.3 ES: 0.3 ES: 0.4
Tegner score 2.9 ± 1.3   Tegner score3.6 ± 1.4
ES: 0.5
Tegner score 3.7 ± 1.5
ES: 0.6
Tegner score 3.7 ± 1.3
ES: 0.6
ROM 129.6 ± 12.2   ROM 130.6 ± 11.8 ROM 130.3 ± 10.7 ROM 130.2 ± 11.1
TPC 410.0 ± 34.3   TPC 411.4 ± 35.2 TPC 407.2 ± 35.6
ES: 0.1
TPC 402.3 ± 33.4
ES: 0.1
HA: IKDC score 49.7 ± 13.0   HA: IKDC score 63.5 ± 15.2
ES: 0
HA: IKDC score 63.5 ± 17.1
ES: 0
HA: IKDC score 64.2 ± 18.0
ES: 0
KOOS Symptoms65.8 ± 16.3   KOOS Symptoms 70.9 ± 16.6
ES: 0.3
KOOS Symptoms 72.7 ± 17.4
ES: 0.4
KOOS Symptoms73.9 ± 18.4
ES: 0.5
Pain 64.1 ± 16.5   Pain 72.6 ± 17.9
ES: 0.5
Pain74.8 ± 17.6
ES: 0.7
Pain 75.4 ± 19.0
ES: 0.7
ADL 68.2 ± 20.2   ADL 78.0 ± 17.9
ES: 0.5
ADL78.4 ± 18.6
ES: 0.5
ADL 78.4 ± 19.3
ES: 0.5
Sport 35.7 ± 24.6   Sport 44.0 ± 25.5
ES: 0.3
Sport 45.1 ± 27.0
ES: 0.4
Sport 46.3 ± 28.1
ES: 0.4
QOL 35.7 ± 18.2   QOL 47.7 ± 22.1
ES: 0.7
QOL 49.9 ± 23.1
ES: 0.8
QOL 50.9 ± 24.4
ES: 0.8
EQ VAS score 71.6 ± 13.4   EQ VAS score 73.9 ± 13.7
ES: 0.2
EQ VAS score74.1 ± 15.1
ES: 0.2
EQ VAS score 73.4 ± 15.2
ES: 0.1
Tegner score 2.8 ± 1.3   Tegner score3.3 ± 1.5
ES: 0.4
Tegner score 3.5 ± 1.5
ES: 0.5
Tegner score 3.4 ± 1.5
ES: 0.5
ROM 128.2 ± 12.2   ROM 129.0 ± 10.9 ROM 128.0 ± 11.4 ROM 127.4 ± 12.0
TPC 415.0 ± 34.7   TPC 413.3 ± 34.1 TPC 408.7 ± 32.5 No statistical significance between groups
No statistical significance between groups   No statistical significance between groups No statistical significance between groups  
Raeissadat et al. [13] PRP: WOMAC 39.5 ± 17.06 DNC DNC DNC PRP: WOMAC 18.44 ± 14.35
(P < 0.001)
ES: 1.2
Pain 8.46 ± 4.17     Pain 4.03 ± 3.36 (P < 0.001)
ES: 1.1
Physical function 2.2 ± 1.76     Physical function 1.19 ± 1.4 (P < 0.001)
ES: 0.6
Stiffness 28.91 ± 12.63     Stiffness 13.19 ± 10.39 (P < 0.001)
ES: 1.2
SF-36 (PCS) 178.14 ± 81.0     SF-36 (PCS) 255.96 ± 77.59 (P < 0.001)
ES: 1.0
SF-36 (MCS) 229.22 ± 95.62     SF-36 (MCS) 269.92 ± 91.48 (P < 0.001)
ES: 0.4
HA: WOMAC 28.69 ± 16.69 pain 6.91 ± 3.82 physical function 1.88 ± 1.72 stiffness 19.88 ± 12.32 SF-36 (PCS) 180.4 ± 68.52 SF-36 (MCS) 226.43 ± 97.39     HA: WOMAC 27.46 ± 16.36 (P = 0.78) pain 5.08 ± 3.71 (P = 0.029)
ES: 0.5 physical function 2.14 ± 1.66 (P = 0.16) stiffness 19.51 ± 11.9 (P = 0.919) SF-36 (PCS) 189.39 ± 103.73 (P = 0.37) SF-36 (MCS) 216.91 ± 100.9 (P = 0.74)
ES: 0.1
Montañez-Heredia et al. [14] DNC PRP: EQ Worsening 7.4% DNC PRP: EQ Worsening 3.7% PRP: EQ Worsening 7.4%
  Similar 74.1%   Similar 48.1% Similar 48.1%
  Improvement 18.5%   Improvement 48.1% Improvement 44.4%
  50% decrease VAS: 55.5%   50% decrease VAS: 55.5% 50% decrease VAS: 44.4%
  HA: EQ Worsening 0%   HA: EQ Worsening 11.5% HA: EQ Worsening 15.4%
  Similar 65.4%   Similar 53.8% Similar 50.0%
  Improvement 34.6%   Improvement 34.6% Improvement 34.6%
  50% decrease VAS: 57.7%   50% decrease VAS: 30.7% 50% decrease VAS: 42.3%
    KOOS: For patients with arthritis grade II, ADL at 3-month follow-up improved significantly on the KOOS scale in the PRP group as compared with the HA group (P = 0.040) KOOS: At 6 months follow-up, pain decreased for arthritis grade II patients injected with PRP (P = 0.012) with improvements in function in daily living (P = 0.013) and function in sport and recreation (P = 0.021)
  1. Abbreviations: ACP Autologous conditioned plasma, DNC study did not collect data during this time period, ADL Activities of daily living, EQ VAS EuroQol visual analogue scale, ES Effect size, HA Hyaluronic acid, IKDC International Knee Documentation Committee, KOOS Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, MCS Mental Component Summary, OMERACT-OARSI Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Osteoarthritis Research Society International, PCS Physical Component Summary PRP Platelet-rich plasma, QOL Quality of life, ROM Range of motion, SF-36 36-Item Short Form Health Survey, TPC Transpatellar circumference, VAS Visual analogue scale, WOMAC Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index