BackgroundIn recent years, platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections for osteoarthritis (OA) have been widely promoted in clinical practice, but their effectiveness is controversial. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis of relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to determine the efficacy and safety of PRP injections for the treatment of OA.MethodsWe searched databases including Embase, Web of Science, Medline, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library for relevant studies. Two researchers (YQX and CG) performed literature screening, baseline data extraction, literature quality assessment, and heterogeneity analysis of RCTs from the retrieved studies. Based on the magnitude of heterogeneity I2, random-effects or fixed-effects models were selected for the meta-analysis.ResultsWe included 24 RCTs comprising 1344 patients with OA who met the inclusion criteria, with the main types of morbidity being knee osteoarthritis (KOA), hip osteoarthritis (HOA), ankle osteoarthritis (AOA), and temporomandibular joint osteoarthritis (TMJOA). Our results indicate that PRP injections were effective in improving Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain scores in patients with KOA, HOA, and AOA compared to controls (AOA, MD = −1.15, CI = 95% [−1.74, −0.56], I2 = 40%, P < 0.05; KOA, MD = −1.03, CI = 95% [−1.16, −0.9], I2 = 87%, P < 0.05; TMJOA, MD = −1.35, CI = 95% [−1.74, −0.97], I2 = 92%, P < 0.05) but showed no significant efficacy in patients with HOA (MD = −0.27, CI = 95% [−0.8, 0.26], I2 = 56%, P>0.05). Compared to controls, PRP injections were effective in improving Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), including the patient's pain symptoms, activities of daily living (ADL), and adhesion symptomatology, but not for that of sports function (KOOS-pain, MD = 2.77, CI = 95% [0, 5.53], I2 = 0%, P < 0.05; KOOS-symptoms, MD = 3.73, CI = 95% [0.76, 6.71], I2 = 0%, P < 0.05; KOOS-ADL, MD = 3.61, CI = 95% [0.79, 6.43], I2 = 0%, P < 0.05; KOOS-QOL, MD = 4.66, CI = 95% [0.98, 8.35], I2 = 29%, P < 0.05, KOOS-sport, MD = 0.48, CI = 95% [−3.02, 3.98], I2 = 0%, P > 0.05). PRP injections were effective in improving Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) scores, including pain, stiffness, and functional joint motion, in patients with OA compared with the control group (WOMAC-pain, MD = −1.08, CI = 95% [−1.62, −0.53], I2 = 87%, P < 0.05; WOMAC-stiffness, MD = −1.17, CI = 88% [−1.72, −0.63], I2 = 87%, P < 0.05; WOMAC-function, MD = −1.12, CI = 95% [−1.65, −0.58], I2 = 87%, P < 0.05). In addition, subgroup analysis showed that leukocyte-poor (LP) PRP injections were more effective than leukocyte-rich (LR) PRP injections in improving pain symptoms in patients with OA (VAS, LR-PRP, MD = −0.81, CI = 95% [−1.65, −0.03], I2 = 83%, P = 0.06 > 0.05; LP-PRP, MD = −1.62, CI = 95% [−2.36, −0.88], I2 = 92%, P < 0.05). A subgroup analysis based on injection sites showed that no statistical difference in efficacy between intra-articular (IA) combined with intra-osseous (IO) simultaneous PRP injections. IA PRP injections only improved VAS pain scores in patients with OA (IA+IO PRP injections, MD = −0.74, CI =95% [−1.29, −0.18], I2 = 61%, P < 0.05; IA PRP injections, MD = −1.43, CI = 95% [−2.18, −0.68], I2 = 87%, P < 0.05, test for subgroup differences, P > 0.05, I2 = 52.7%).ConclusionPRP injection therapy can safely and effectively improve functional activity in patients with OA and produce positive analgesic effects in patients with KOA, TMJOA, and AOA. However, PRP injection therapy did not significantly reduce pain symptoms in patients with HOA. In addition, the analgesic effect of LP-PRP was greater than that of LR-PRP.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier: CRD42022362066.

BackgroundIn recent years, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) has emerged as a noninvasive and painless treatment for post-stroke cognitive impairment (PSCI). However, few studies have analyzed the intervention parameters of cognitive function and the effectiveness and safety of rTMS for treating patients with PSCI. Thus, this meta-analysis aimed to analyze the interventional parameters of rTMS and evaluate the safety and effectiveness of rTMS for treating patients with PSCI.MethodsAccording to the PRISMA guidelines, we searched the Web of Science, PubMed, EBSCO, Cochrane Library, PEDro, and Embase to retrieve randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of rTMS for the treatment of patients with PSCI. Studies were screened according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, and two reviewers independently performed literature screening, data extraction, and quality assessment. RevMan 5.40 software was used for data analysis.Results12 RCTs involving 497 patients with PSCI met the inclusion criteria. In our analysis, rTMS had a positive therapeutic effect on cognitive rehabilitation in patients with PSCI (P < 0.05). Both high-frequency rTMS and low-frequency rTMS were effective in improving the cognitive function of patients with PSCI by stimulating the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), but their efficacy was not statistically different (P > 0.05).ConclusionsrTMS treatment on the DLPFC can improve cognitive function in patients with PSCI. There is no significant difference in the treatment effect of high-frequency rTMS and low-frequency rTMS in patients with PSCI between high-frequency and low-frequency rTMS.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=323720, identifier CRD 42022323720.

No abstract