Scaffold-associated procedures are superior to microfracture in managing focal cartilage defects in the knee: A systematic review & meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Debate continues as to whether surgical treatment with chondral-regeneration devices is superior to microfracture for focal articular cartilage defects in the knee. PURPOSE: To evaluate the superiority of scaffold-associated chondral-regeneration procedures over microfracture by assessing: (1) Patient-reported outcomes; (2) Intervention failure; (3) Histological quality of cartilage repair. STUDY DESIGN: A three-concept keyword search strategy was designed, in accordance with PRISMA guidelines: (i) knee (ii) microfracture (iii) scaffold. Four databases (Ovid Medline, Embase, CINAHL and Scopus) were searched for comparative clinical trials (Level I-III evidence). Critical appraisal used two Cochrane tools: the Risk of Bias tool (RoB2) for randomized control trials and the Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies-of Interventions (ROBINS-I). Study heterogeneity permitted qualitative analysis with the exception of three patient-reported scores, for which a meta-analysis was performed. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies were identified (1699 patients, age range 18-66 years): ten randomized control trials and eleven non-randomized study interventions. Meta-analyses of the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), Knee Injury And Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) for pain and activities of daily living, and Lysholm score demonstrated statistically significant improvement in outcomes for scaffold procedures compared to microfracture at two years. No statistical difference was seen at five years. CONCLUSION: Despite the limitations of study heterogeneity, scaffold-associated procedures appear to be superior to MF in terms of patient-reported outcomes at two years though similar at five years. Future evaluation would benefit from studies using validated clinical scoring systems, reporting failure, adverse events and long-term clinical follow up to determine technique safety and superiority.

Ethnic minority representation in UK COVID-19 trials: systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted health disparities affecting ethnic minority communities. There is growing concern about the lack of diversity in clinical trials. This study aimed to assess the representation of ethnic groups in UK-based COVID-19 randomised controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis were undertaken. A search strategy was developed for MEDLINE (Ovid) and Google Scholar (1st January 2020-4th May 2022). Prospective COVID-19 RCTs for vaccines or therapeutics that reported UK data separately with a minimum of 50 participants were eligible. Search results were independently screened, and data extracted into proforma. Percentage of ethnic groups at all trial stages was mapped against Office of National Statistics (ONS) statistics. Post hoc DerSimonian-Laird random-effects meta-analysis of percentages and a meta-regression assessing recruitment over time were conducted. Due to the nature of the review question, risk of bias was not assessed. Data analysis was conducted in Stata v17.0. A protocol was registered (PROSPERO CRD42021244185). RESULTS: In total, 5319 articles were identified; 30 studies were included, with 118,912 participants. Enrolment to trials was the only stage consistently reported (17 trials). Meta-analysis showed significant heterogeneity across studies, in relation to census-expected proportions at study enrolment. All ethnic groups, apart from Other (1.7% [95% CI 1.1-2.8%] vs ONS 1%) were represented to a lesser extent than ONS statistics, most marked in Black (1% [0.6-1.5%] vs 3.3%) and Asian (5.8% [4.4-7.6%] vs 7.5%) groups, but also apparent in White (84.8% [81.6-87.5%] vs 86%) and Mixed 1.6% [1.2-2.1%] vs 2.2%) groups. Meta-regression showed recruitment of Black participants increased over time (p = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: Asian, Black and Mixed ethnic groups are under-represented or incorrectly classified in UK COVID-19 RCTs. Reporting by ethnicity lacks consistency and transparency. Under-representation in clinical trials occurs at multiple levels and requires complex solutions, which should be considered throughout trial conduct. These findings may not apply outside of the UK setting.