# Predictive Performance of Raman Spectroscopy in Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review

## TL;DR

This paper reviews how well Raman spectroscopy can detect osteoarthritis early, showing promising accuracy but pointing out the need for better validation.

## Contribution

The study systematically evaluates Raman spectroscopy's predictive performance for osteoarthritis using a comprehensive review of preclinical studies.

## Key findings

- Raman spectroscopy showed predictive accuracy between 73% and 100% in preclinical osteoarthritis studies.
- Most studies had a high risk of bias and lacked external validation, limiting generalizability.
- Near-infrared excited Raman spectroscopy was the most commonly used technique in the reviewed studies.

## Abstract

Early diagnosis of osteoarthritis (OA) remains a critical unmet need due to the lack of reliable detection methods. Detecting OA at an early stage provides a valuable clinical window for implementing effective intervention strategies. Raman spectroscopy (RS) holds promise for improving predictive accuracy in detecting osteoarthritic changes at the molecular level, monitoring disease progression, and assessing severity. This study aimed to systematically evaluate the predictive performance of RS in OA assessment in human samples, thereby highlighting current advancements in the field. The search included PubMed/Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, and IEEE for studies published up to July 31, 2024. Two authors individually screened the studies using Covidence software, and data extraction was based on predefined criteria. The Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool was employed to evaluate the bias and applicability of the included studies. Ten studies met the inclusion criteria. Near-infrared excited RS was the most used RS technique. All included studies reported predictive accuracy ranging from 73% to 100% in preclinical settings for OA assessment. Although all studies performed internal validation, most had a high risk of bias and none reported external validation, which limits the generalizability of their findings. These findings underscore both the potential and current limitations of RS in OA assessment. Future research should prioritize larger sample sizes, external validation, and standardized RS protocols to improve reproducibility across diverse clinical settings.

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10916-025-02304-x.