Mingqing Fang

Purpose: To critically evaluate the role or effect of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction in terms of clinical and radiological outcomes. Method: We conducted a systematic search of PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science to identify relevant studies. Clinical outcomes included the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective and objective evaluations, Lysholm score, Tegner score, anterior knee laxity, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Kujala score, Victorian Institute of Sport Assessment (VISA) scale, proprioception, isokinetic strength, and physical examination tests (anterior drawer, Lachman, and pivot-shift tests). Radiological outcomes encompassed measures obtained via magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), computed tomography (CT), X-ray, and ultrasound. Statistical significance was defined as a p value < 0.05, and all analyses were performed using R software (version 4.1.3). Results: A total of 23 studies, including 19 randomized controlled trials, met the inclusion criteria, encompassing 1072 patients overall. The meta-analysis showed significant differences between PRP group and non-PRP group with regard to VAS score at 6- and 12-month follow-up, Lysholm score at 6-month follow-up, and Tegner score at 6-month follow-up. Meta-regression showed that the two group differences in VAS score changed significantly with follow-up time (p < 0.01). In terms of radiological findings, about half of the assessments favored PRP to facilitate the graft maturation and integration at 6-month follow-up. Conclusions: PRP application in ACL reconstruction compared with non-PRP, may produce short-term but not long-term clinical outcomes such as VAS score, Lysholm score and Tegner score. While some short-term statistical differences exist, their magnitude and durability do not yet justify routine clinical adoption of PRP in ACL reconstruction. Larger samples and higher-quality studies are needed to support our results and further explore the advantages of PRP in other aspects. Level of evidence: Level II.

Background: Parkinson disease (PD) impairs gait, balance, and quality of life, and wearable devices have been proposed to support rehabilitation, but evidence for their clinical efficacy remains uncertain. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate, within the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) framework, the effects of wearable-device interventions on gait performance, balance, and health-related quality of life in people with PD by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Methods: We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to November 18, 2025, for RCTs in people with PD comparing wearable-device interventions with control conditions. We used Hartung-Knapp random-effects models to pool mean differences (MDs) or standardized mean differences (SMDs) and reported 95% prediction intervals when ≥3 studies were pooled. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias (RoB) tool, and certainty of evidence was rated using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE). Results: Nine RCTs involving 260 participants were included. Wearable devices produced a small improvement in stride length (MD 0.10 meter, 95% CI 0.03-0.17), but there was no clear benefit for the 10-Meter Walk Test time (MD 0.04 second, 95% CI –0.06 to 0.15). Double support time showed no reduction (MD –1.59% gait cycle, 95% CI –3.79 to 0.61). Freezing of gait (Freezing of Gait Questionnaire [FOG-Q] and New Freezing of Gait Questionnaire [NFOG-Q]) did not significantly improve (SMD –0.24, 95% CI –0.72 to 0.24). Motor severity (Unified Parkinson Disease Rating Scale Part III [UPDRS III]) showed a small, nonsignificant trend favoring wearable devices (MD –2.16 points, 95% CI –4.39 to 0.07). For balance, pooled results from the Berg Balance Scale (BBS), Mini Balance Evaluation Systems Test (Mini-BESTest), and Performance-Oriented Mobility Assessment Balance Subscale (POMA balance) suggested a borderline effect (SMD 0.48, 95% CI –0.02 to 0.98). Wearable devices did not meaningfully improve Parkinson Disease Questionnaire (PDQ) scores (SMD –0.28, 95% CI –0.74 to 0.17), EQ-5D utility (MD 0.10, 95% CI –0.24 to 0.44), or Falls Efficacy Scale–International (FES-I) scores (MD –0.04, 95% CI –1.10 to 1.02). Prediction intervals frequently crossed the null, suggesting effects may vary by setting and population. Conclusions: Wearable device interventions for Parkinson disease produced a small improvement on average in stride length, with no consistent benefits for other gait outcomes, balance, or patient-centered outcomes. By integrating ICF mapping with Hartung-Knapp meta-analysis, prediction intervals, and GRADE, and avoiding pooling of conceptually distinct gait measures used in prior reviews, this review clarifies where evidence is most consistent, supports using wearables as adjuncts to rehabilitation, and underscores the need for larger, longer RCTs with standardized outcomes to determine who benefits and how to implement them. Trial Registration: PROSPERO CRD42024585686; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42024585686

BACKGROUND Parkinson disease (PD) impairs gait, balance, and quality of life, and wearable devices have been proposed to support rehabilitation, but evidence for their clinical efficacy remains uncertain. OBJECTIVE This study aimed to evaluate, within the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) framework, the effects of wearable-device interventions on gait performance, balance, and health-related quality of life in people with PD by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to November 18, 2025, for RCTs in people with PD comparing wearable-device interventions with control conditions. We used Hartung-Knapp random-effects models to pool mean differences (MDs) or standardized mean differences (SMDs) and reported 95% prediction intervals when ≥3 studies were pooled. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias (RoB) tool, and certainty of evidence was rated using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE). RESULTS Nine RCTs involving 260 participants were included. Wearable devices produced a small improvement in stride length (MD 0.10 meter, 95% CI 0.03-0.17), but there was no clear benefit for the 10-Meter Walk Test time (MD 0.04 second, 95% CI –0.06 to 0.15). Double support time showed no reduction (MD –1.59% gait cycle, 95% CI –3.79 to 0.61). Freezing of gait (Freezing of Gait Questionnaire [FOG-Q] and New Freezing of Gait Questionnaire [NFOG-Q]) did not significantly improve (SMD –0.24, 95% CI –0.72 to 0.24). Motor severity (Unified Parkinson Disease Rating Scale Part III [UPDRS III]) showed a small, nonsignificant trend favoring wearable devices (MD –2.16 points, 95% CI –4.39 to 0.07). For balance, pooled results from the Berg Balance Scale (BBS), Mini Balance Evaluation Systems Test (Mini-BESTest), and Performance-Oriented Mobility Assessment Balance Subscale (POMA balance) suggested a borderline effect (SMD 0.48, 95% CI –0.02 to 0.98). Wearable devices did not meaningfully improve Parkinson Disease Questionnaire (PDQ) scores (SMD –0.28, 95% CI –0.74 to 0.17), EQ-5D utility (MD 0.10, 95% CI –0.24 to 0.44), or Falls Efficacy Scale–International (FES-I) scores (MD –0.04, 95% CI –1.10 to 1.02). Prediction intervals frequently crossed the null, suggesting effects may vary by setting and population. CONCLUSIONS Wearable device interventions for Parkinson disease produced a small improvement on average in stride length, with no consistent benefits for other gait outcomes, balance, or patient-centered outcomes. By integrating ICF mapping with Hartung-Knapp meta-analysis, prediction intervals, and GRADE, and avoiding pooling of conceptually distinct gait measures used in prior reviews, this review clarifies where evidence is most consistent, supports using wearables as adjuncts to rehabilitation, and underscores the need for larger, longer RCTs with standardized outcomes to determine who benefits and how to implement them. CLINICALTRIAL PROSPERO CRD42024585686; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42024585686