The clinic owners also run this guide

The clinic owners may benefit when you book

This guide is run by people who also own the clinics it discusses, so they may earn money if you use its booking link or arrange a visit with those clinics. That connection may affect which clinic the guide asks you to contact. It’s worth keeping in mind as you consider the treatment information.

This guide can’t choose care for you. An exam is still needed to learn why the joint hurts, and you’re free to take your questions elsewhere.

The choice remains yours.

Medical studies support the general health information

The health statements here come from medical studies and advice about joint care. Those sources explain what has happened in groups of people, not what will happen to you. A study can’t replace your health history or a hands-on exam, so only a doctor or another licensed health professional who examines the joint can explain what may be causing your soreness.

You’re always welcome to ask what supports a health claim. You’ll be able to ask whether a claim comes from a study of people whose joint soreness was like yours. You may also ask what the study found about comfort, movement, and cartilage on a scan. Your own doctor can discuss those questions before any treatment choice. That can make the health advice easier to judge.

Sources

1. A dual systematic review compared the RCT evidence on injectable orthobiologics for knee OA with how news media describe it. Of 14 qualifying RCTs, 8 showed significant pain improvement and 10 function improvement, with frequent heterogeneity and risk of bias. Of 124 news articles: 79.0% highlighted benefits, only 29.8% mentioned drawbacks, 37.1% used the term 'stem cell' without specifying the product, 35.5% mentioned commercial entities with no disclosure, and 66.1% were favourable in tone. The authors conclude this disconnect encourages unrealistic expectations.

   Zhang EJX, et al. — Disparities in Evidence and Media Portrayal of Injectable Orthobiologics for Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review of Randomized Trials and News Media.. Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine, 2026. DOI: 10.1177/23259671261443876.

2. A Level-1a systematic review of 87 randomized PRP-for-knee-OA trials (7,925 patients, 8,118 knees) scored them against the 23-item MIBO reporting checklist. The overall MIBO score was 72%, 71% of studies scored below 80%, and reporting was worst on exactly the items that define the product: whole-blood characteristics (20%), platelet recovery rate (22%), PRP analysis (30%), PRP activation (47%). Adherence did not improve after MIBO was published. Much of the PRP literature does not say what was actually injected.

   Nakagawa HF, et al. — Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials Evaluating the Use of Platelet-Rich Plasma for Knee Osteoarthritis: Adherence to Minimum Information for Studies Evaluating Biologics in Orthopaedics.. The American journal of sports medicine, 2025. DOI: 10.1177/03635465241249996.