Over the past decade, one thing has become abundantly clear: when it comes to reporting on interventional orthobiologics, the media often gets it wrong. Whether through selective quoting or misinterpretation of scientific data, mainstream news outlets frequently overlook the nuances of emerging treatments like platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and stem cell therapies. While some criticisms are valid—especially regarding the overselling of these treatments by certain clinics—there’s also a growing body of evidence that supports the use of these therapies, particularly when compared to traditional surgical options. Today, let’s dive into the science behind two common procedures—PRP and bone marrow concentrate (BMC)—and examine how the media has shaped the public’s perception of them.
The Growing Divide Between Science and Media Narratives
In recent years, we’ve seen a sharp increase in media coverage of stem cell and PRP therapies, particularly in the context of orthopedic care. Unfortunately, much of this coverage has been skewed, often due to the influence of scientists who have vested interests in competing technologies. While there are certainly bad actors in the world of regenerative medicine, the broader story is much more nuanced. Some of the most reputable institutions, including major universities and hospitals, are now offering PRP and BMC injections to help patients avoid surgery—a shift that is supported by growing clinical evidence.
Yet, the media continues to sensationalize the potential risks while largely ignoring the mounting scientific backing for these procedures. This results in public confusion, as readers are left to navigate a patchwork of mixed messages. In particular, selective quoting of experts who oppose these treatments, often from academic scientists without clinical experience, can paint an overly negative picture.
The Media’s Misstep: PRP in the Spotlight
Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is one of the most common orthobiologic treatments, but it is frequently mischaracterized in the media. Unlike stem cells, PRP does not involve any cellular regeneration. Instead, it uses a concentration of platelets from the patient’s own blood to promote healing and reduce inflammation in damaged tissues. PRP is often grouped with stem cell treatments in news stories, despite the two being fundamentally different.
One of the most telling examples of media misreporting can be found in a 2019 article by Kaiser Health News (KHN). The piece criticized the growing popularity of regenerative medicine, claiming that “the evidence supporting these experimental therapies is thin at best.” The article lumped PRP with stem cell treatments, calling it unproven and potentially dangerous, citing isolated incidents where PRP caused complications, like increased pain following tendon treatments.
However, when we look at the actual body of evidence surrounding PRP, this claim doesn’t hold up. For example, there are over 20 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining the effectiveness of PRP for knee arthritis, and the results show consistently positive outcomes. PRP has been shown to be as effective as—or better than—other common treatments like steroid injections or hyaluronic acid. In contrast, knee replacement surgery, often touted as the gold standard for severe knee arthritis, has only one major RCT supporting its efficacy, making it a far more questionable choice when compared to PRP injections.
Is PRP Dangerous? A Closer Look
The KHN article also included concerns about PRP’s safety, particularly in treating tendon injuries like patellar tendinitis. It pointed to a 2013 study involving three patients who experienced worsened pain after receiving PRP injections. However, this case series is hardly representative of the broader reality. More than a dozen RCTs involving PRP for tendon injuries have shown positive results, with no significant safety issues. In fact, when compared to the limited research available for knee replacement surgeries, PRP’s safety and efficacy stand out as remarkably well-supported by clinical data.
The idea that PRP is “dangerous” is simply not supported by the majority of the research. It’s clear that the media, in this case, failed to contextualize the broader body of evidence, choosing instead to highlight a single, poorly designed study to fit a negative narrative.
Stem Cells: The Same Missteps
The media’s treatment of stem cell therapies, particularly BMC (bone marrow concentrate), is equally problematic. In 2019, both Kaiser Health News and The New York Times published stories questioning the efficacy and ethics of stem cell treatments for orthopedic issues like knee arthritis. Both articles cited experts like Dr. Paul Knoepfler, a stem cell researcher at the University of California, Davis, who argued that the evidence supporting these therapies is “scarce” and that patients were being “charged for unproven therapies.”
However, this view fails to reflect the growing body of evidence supporting BMC as an effective treatment for knee arthritis. Since these articles were published, several high-quality RCTs have demonstrated the efficacy of BMC in reducing pain and improving function for knee arthritis patients. These studies have used higher doses of BMC, and the results have been promising—yet the media often ignores these positive findings, focusing instead on isolated negative studies that use lower doses or poor methodology.
Moreover, the FDA does not regulate PRP or BMC because they are considered medical procedures, not drugs. This regulatory distinction is crucial, as it underscores the difference between legitimate treatments and those that may not have sufficient scientific backing.
The Bigger Picture: Why the Media Fails to Do Its Homework
The issue with media coverage of orthobiologics is not necessarily the presence of experts with opposing views. Rather, it’s the selective quoting of those experts and the lack of context regarding the published research. A balanced approach would involve interviewing a wide range of clinical experts who perform these procedures regularly, as well as comparing the evidence for these treatments to the alternatives, like surgery. Unfortunately, in today’s fast-paced news cycle, this kind of in-depth reporting is rare.
What’s more concerning is that many news outlets fail to consider the broader implications of their reporting. By failing to accurately represent the growing body of evidence in favor of treatments like PRP and BMC, the media risks undermining public trust in innovative healthcare solutions. Worse, by presenting these therapies as dangerous or ineffective, they may prevent patients from exploring less invasive, potentially more effective options.
Conclusion: The Need for Better Reporting
As we continue to see more research supporting the use of PRP and BMC in orthopedic care, the media needs to reconsider how it covers these therapies. It’s not enough to quote bench scientists with limited clinical experience or to focus on isolated incidents that paint a negative picture. A more balanced approach would take into account the full spectrum of clinical evidence, offering readers a clearer understanding of the potential benefits and limitations of these treatments.
The bottom line? The media has missed the mark on reporting about orthobiologics. As these therapies become more widely accepted and supported by robust clinical data, it’s crucial that we get the story right. Without more careful, evidence-based reporting, patients may continue to be misinformed about the real options available to them.
