Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30353479›Full record

ReviewCurrent reviews in musculoskeletal medicine2018

Current Clinical Recommendations for Use of Platelet-Rich Plasma.

Adrian D K Le, Lawrence Enweze, Malcolm R DeBaun, Jason L Dragoo

Registry-linked trialOpen access · greenAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04392999 (A Pilot Study Comparing Intra-articular Corticosteroid Injections to Platelet Rich Plasma), which is not on this map. Cited by 170 papers, 20 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
170citing papers in PubMed, 20 pooled it
36.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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.

NCT04392999 phase2 / phase3completednot on this mapstarted 2021, after this paper: background citation

A Pilot Study Comparing Intra-articular Corticosteroid Injections to Platelet Rich Plasma (PRP) as a Treatment for Cervical Facetogenic Pain

TypeinterventionalSponsorLondon Health Sciences Centre Research Institute OR Lawson Research Institute of St. Joseph'sRan2021 to 2024Enrolled55ConditionsCervical PainArmsIntraarticular platelet rich plasma cervical facet injection, Corticosteroid injection
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

170 citing papers in PubMed, 20 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 366 citations in OpenAlex.

  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. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it

110 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Adrian D K LeDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Stanford University, 450 Broadway St, Redwood City, CA, USA.
Lawrence EnwezeDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Stanford University, 450 Broadway St, Redwood City, CA, USA.
Malcolm R DeBaunDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Stanford University, 450 Broadway St, Redwood City, CA, USA.
Jason L DragooDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Stanford University, 450 Broadway St, Redwood City, CA, USA. jdragoo@stanford.edu.
Stanford University · USPediatric Oncology Group · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewThis review evaluates current clinical literature on the use of platelet-rich plasma (PRP), including leukocyte-rich PRP (LR-PRP) and leukocyte-poor PRP (LP-PRP), in order to develop evidence-based recommendations for various musculoskeletal indications. RECENT

findingsAbundant high-quality evidence supports the use of LR-PRP injection for lateral epicondylitis and LP-PRP for osteoarthritis of the knee. Moderate high-quality evidence supports the use of LR-PRP injection for patellar tendinopathy and of PRP injection for plantar fasciitis and donor site pain in patellar tendon graft BTB ACL reconstruction. There is insufficient evidence to routinely recommend PRP for rotator cuff tendinopathy, osteoarthritis of the hip, or high ankle sprains. Current evidence demonstrates a lack of efficacy of PRP for Achilles tendinopathy, muscle injuries, acute fracture or nonunion, surgical augmentation in rotator cuff repair, Achilles tendon repair, and ACL reconstruction. PRP is a promising treatment for some musculoskeletal diseases; however, evidence of its efficacy has been highly variable depending on the specific indication. Additional high-quality clinical trials with longer follow-up will be critical in shaping our perspective of this treatment option.

Indexed as

OrthobiologicsOsteoarthritisPlatelet-rich plasmaPRPRegenerative medicineTendinopathy

Identifiers

PMID30353479
PMCPMC6220007
OpenAlexW2896243120

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.