Good evidence compares one treatment with another

One good result doesn't prove a treatment worked

A person can improve after almost any kind of care. Rest, daily activity, and time can also change soreness. That doesn't mean the relief wasn't real. It means one result can't show what caused it.

Ask whether people received another kind of care for comparison. Find out how long the research followed them. Brief relief may fade once normal use returns. Your choice deserves more than one person's result.

Proof should match the exact procedure

Two procedures with similar names may be made differently. Research on one procedure may not fit the one you're offered. A knee result may not answer a shoulder question. Different causes of soreness also matter.

Ask for research on your joint and exact procedure. Then ask what people could do after treatment. Walking farther or sleeping better is easier to judge than a score. The clinic should explain the answer in common words.

An exam comes before a treatment claim

The exam must come before a claim about relief. It checks whether the soreness starts in the joint or nearby tissue. It can also find signs that need different care. A procedure name can't replace that exam.

Some newer names cover several joint procedures. QC Kinetix offers orthobiologics, a broad name for care such as PRP made by gathering platelets from your blood and placing that liquid in the aching joint. Ask whether the person examining you is a doctor. Don't accept a sales answer about why the procedure fits.

Sources

1. FDA states in its consumer alert that the only FDA-approved stem cell products in the United States are blood-forming stem cells derived from umbilical cord blood, approved for disorders of the blood-forming system, and that NONE of these products - stem cells, stromal vascular fraction, umbilical cord blood, Wharton's jelly or amniotic fluid - has been approved for the treatment of any orthopedic condition, including osteoarthritis, tendonitis, disc disease, tennis elbow, back pain, hip pain, knee pain, neck pain or shoulder pain.

   US Food and Drug Administration, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research — Consumer Alert on Regenerative Medicine Products Including Stem Cells and Exosomes. , 2020.

2. 21 CFR 1271.10(a) sets the four criteria a human cell or tissue product must meet to be regulated SOLELY under section 361 of the Public Health Service Act: it must be minimally manipulated; intended for homologous use only, as reflected by labeling and advertising; not combined with another article beyond water, crystalloids or a preserving agent; and either have no systemic effect and not depend on the metabolic activity of living cells, or else be for autologous use, use in a close blood relative, or reproductive use.

   US Code of Federal Regulations, Title 21 — 21 CFR 1271.10 - Are my HCT/P's regulated solely under section 361 of the PHS Act. , 2004.

3. In a 480-patient, four-arm, multicenter randomized phase 2/3 trial, none of three orthobiologic cell injections - autologous bone marrow aspirate concentrate, autologous adipose stromal vascular fraction, or allogeneic umbilical cord tissue-derived mesenchymal stromal cells - was superior to any other, or to a corticosteroid injection control, on pain at 12 months.

   Mautner K, et al. — Cell-based versus corticosteroid injections for knee pain in osteoarthritis: a randomized phase 3 trial. Nat Med, 2023. DOI: 10.1038/s41591-023-02632-w.

4. A 2025 meta-analysis of 73 double-blind placebo-controlled injection trials in 5,895 knee osteoarthritis patients found placebo responder rates above 50 percent at 1, 3 and 6 months, declining by 12 months - which is why any uncontrolled 'our patients improved' claim from a clinic is uninterpretable.

   Previtali D, et al. — Placebo response to intra-articular injections in knee osteoarthritis: magnitude, evolution over time, and influencing factors. A systematic review and meta-analysis with meta-regression. EFORT Open Rev, 2025. DOI: 10.1530/EOR-2025-0022.

5. A 2016 analysis of internet marketing found widespread direct-to-consumer promotion of unapproved stem cell interventions by businesses based in the United States - not only in countries with lax medical regulation - and concluded regulators must better oversee the marketplace.

   Turner L, et al. — Selling Stem Cells in the USA: Assessing the Direct-to-Consumer Industry. Cell Stem Cell, 2016. DOI: 10.1016/j.stem.2016.06.007.