Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30128775›Full record

ArticleJournal of orthopaedics and traumatology : official journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology2018

Some patients (and some of us) respond better to some biological therapies: the as yet unsolved conundrum.

Isabel Andia, Nicola Maffulli

Abstract readEditorial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of orthopaedics and traumatology : official journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 10 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Isabel AndiaRegenerative Medicine Laboratory, BioCruces Health Research Institute, Cruces University Hospital, 48903, Barakaldo, Spain.
Nicola MaffulliDepartment of Musculoskeletal Disorders, University of Salerno School of Medicine and Dentistry, Salerno, Italy. n.maffulli@qmul.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Very often, treatment for many common musculoskeletal conditions is only palliative, or involves surgery with major shortcomings. Biological interventions-in particular, platelet-rich plasma (PRP) therapies-may well provide more effective treatments, but their actual efficacy is under scrutiny. PRP is biologically unique to each individual depending on endogenous and exogenous factors, including, but not limited to, demographic factors (i.e. age), immune status (i.e. microbiota), metabolic diseases and concomitant medications. All these potential modifiers of the ultimate effects of PRP have been poorly explored, and their relationship with efficacy has not been established.

Indexed as

Patient SatisfactionPlatelet-Rich PlasmaBiological TherapyHumansMusculoskeletal Diseases

Identifiers

PMID30128775
PMCPMC6102158

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.