Iain R Murray1, Patrick G Robinson2, Christopher C West3, Ewan B Goudie2, Li Y Yong3, Timothy O White2, Robert F LaPrade4. 1. University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland; Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland. 2. Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland. 3. University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland. 4. Steadman Philippon Research Institute, Vail, Colorado, U.S.A.. Electronic address: rlaprade@thesteadmanclinic.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To perform a systematic review of clinical studies evaluating bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMAC) in the treatment of musculoskeletal pathology to compare levels of reporting with recently published minimum standards. METHODS: A systematic review of the clinical literature from August 2002 to August 2017 was performed. Human clinical studies published in English and involving the administration of BMAC for musculoskeletal applications were included. Studies evaluating non-concentrated preparations of bone marrow aspirate or preparations of laboratory cultured cells were excluded. Studies evaluating the treatment of dental or maxillofacial conditions were excluded. Similarly, in vitro studies, editorials, letters to the editor, and reviews were excluded. Levels of reporting were compared with previously published minimum standards agreed on through an international Delphi consensus process. RESULTS: Of 1,580 studies identified on the initial search, 46 satisfied the criteria for inclusion. Considerable deficiencies in reporting of key variables including the details of BMAC preparation and composition were noted. Studies reported information on only 42% (range, 25%-60%) of the variables included within established minimum reporting standards. No study provided adequate information to enable the precise replication of preparation protocols and accurate characterization of the BMAC formulation delivered. CONCLUSIONS: We found that all existing clinical studies in the literature evaluating BMAC for orthopaedic or sports medicine applications are limited by inadequate reporting of both preparation protocols and composition. Deficient reporting of the variables that may critically influence outcomes precludes interpretation, prevents other researchers from reproducing experimental conditions, and makes comparisons across studies difficult. We encourage the adoption of emerging minimum reporting standards for clinical studies evaluating the use of mesenchymal stem cells in orthopaedics. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, systematic review of Level I through IV studies.
PURPOSE: To perform a systematic review of clinical studies evaluating bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMAC) in the treatment of musculoskeletal pathology to compare levels of reporting with recently published minimum standards. METHODS: A systematic review of the clinical literature from August 2002 to August 2017 was performed. Human clinical studies published in English and involving the administration of BMAC for musculoskeletal applications were included. Studies evaluating non-concentrated preparations of bone marrow aspirate or preparations of laboratory cultured cells were excluded. Studies evaluating the treatment of dental or maxillofacial conditions were excluded. Similarly, in vitro studies, editorials, letters to the editor, and reviews were excluded. Levels of reporting were compared with previously published minimum standards agreed on through an international Delphi consensus process. RESULTS: Of 1,580 studies identified on the initial search, 46 satisfied the criteria for inclusion. Considerable deficiencies in reporting of key variables including the details of BMAC preparation and composition were noted. Studies reported information on only 42% (range, 25%-60%) of the variables included within established minimum reporting standards. No study provided adequate information to enable the precise replication of preparation protocols and accurate characterization of the BMAC formulation delivered. CONCLUSIONS: We found that all existing clinical studies in the literature evaluating BMAC for orthopaedic or sports medicine applications are limited by inadequate reporting of both preparation protocols and composition. Deficient reporting of the variables that may critically influence outcomes precludes interpretation, prevents other researchers from reproducing experimental conditions, and makes comparisons across studies difficult. We encourage the adoption of emerging minimum reporting standards for clinical studies evaluating the use of mesenchymal stem cells in orthopaedics. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, systematic review of Level I through IV studies.
Authors: Peter A Everts; Gerard A Malanga; Rowan V Paul; Joshua B Rothenberg; Natalie Stephens; Kenneth R Mautner Journal: Regen Ther Date: 2019-05-10 Impact factor: 3.419
Authors: Arthur Landry; Benjamin J Levy; Mary Beth McCarthy; Lukas N Muench; Colin Uyeki; Daniel P Berthold; Mark P Cote; Augustus D Mazzocca Journal: Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil Date: 2020-09-14
Authors: Tim Dwyer; Graeme Hoit; Adrienne Lee; Elyse Watkins; Patrick Henry; Tim Leroux; Christian Veillette; John Theodoropoulos; Darrell Ogilvie-Harris; Jaskarndip Chahal Journal: Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil Date: 2021-08-14
Authors: Madeleine G DeClercq; Alyson M Fiorentino; Haylie A Lengel; Joseph J Ruzbarsky; Sara K Robinson; Verena T Oberlohr; Kaitlyn E Whitney; Peter J Millett; Johnny Huard Journal: Orthop J Sports Med Date: 2021-12-07