The quality and accuracy of direct-to-consumer biologic marketing for shoulder pathology are poor

Interval Throwing Programs for Baseball Players: Methodological Assessment of the Quality and Construct of Publicly Available Programs

CONTEXT

The quality and interprogram variability of publicly available throwing programs have not been assessed.

OBJECTIVE

To (1) identify publicly available interval throwing programs, (2) describe their components and structure, and (3) evaluate their quality, variability, and completeness.

DATA SOURCES

Google, Bing, Yahoo; keyword: "interval throwing program."

STUDY SELECTION

Baseball-specific publicly available programs.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level 4.

DATA EXTRACTION

Independent evaluation by 2 authors using a novel 21-item Quality Assessment Rubric (QAR).

RESULTS

Of the 99 included programs, 54% were designed for return from injury/surgery; 42% explicitly stated no expected timeline for completion, and approximately 40% did not provide criteria to initiate the program. Program construction was highly variable. There were broad-ranging shortest (mean: 40±8 ft, range: 20-45 ft) and longest (mean: 150±33 ft, range: 90-250 ft) long toss distances, and variable maximum numbers of mound pitches thrown before returning to game play (range: 40-120, mean: 85). Only 63% of programs provided guidelines for handling setbacks, and standardized warm-ups, arm care, and concomitant training were absent in 32%, 63%, and 47% of programs, respectively. Mean QAR completion rate and QAR item response rate were low (62 ± 4% [range, 24-91%], 62 ± 24% [range, 7-99%], respectively). Finally, only 20 (20%) programs provided at least 1 peer-reviewed reference, most of which were published >10 years ago.

CONCLUSION

Publicly available interval throwing programs are readily available but demonstrate significant interprogram heterogeneity across multiple areas including target audience, program construction, progression, and execution. The quality and consistency of publicly available interval throwing programs is poor at this time, which may limit their utility and effectiveness for baseball players attempting to return to competition. This work identifies a multitude of deficiencies in currently available throwing programs that should be targets of future improvement efforts.

Microfragmented Adipose Tissue Is Equivalent to Platelet-Rich Plasma for Knee Osteoarthritis at 12 Months Posttreatment: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Background

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is an effective treatment for knee osteoarthritis (OA). Microfragmented adipose tissue (MFAT) is another orthobiologic that holds promise, but data supporting its use are limited. Previous studies showed that MFAT created using the Lipogems device was equivalent to PRP created via noncommercial laboratory-based processes.

Purpose

To perform a comparison of commercially available MFAT and PRP systems for treatment of knee OA.

Study Design

Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 2.

Methods

A total of 71 patients with symptomatic knee OA (Kellgren-Lawrence grades 1-4) were randomized to receive a single injection of either leukocyte-rich PRP (Angel; Arthrex) or MFAT (Lipogems) under ultrasound guidance. Patient-reported outcomes (Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score [KOOS], visual analog scale for pain with activities of daily living [VAS pain], and Tegner activity level) were recorded at baseline and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after injection. The primary outcome was the KOOS-Pain subscale score at 12 months after injection.

Results

Overall, 49 patients completed their 12-month follow-up (PRP group, n = 23; MFAT group, n = 26). All demographic features were similar between groups, except that more men were randomized to the PRP group and more women to the MFAT group. At 12 months posttreatment, KOOS-Pain scores improved in both groups, with no significant group difference (PRP, 78 ± 17.9 vs MFAT, 77.8 ± 19.3; P = .69). Similarly, other KOOS subscales, VAS pain scores, and Tegner scores improved at 12 months, with no differences between treatment groups.

Conclusion

Both PRP and MFAT injections for knee OA resulted in improved patient-reported outcomes at 12 months posttreatment, with no differences found between treatments.

Registration

NCT04351087 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier).