Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32596408›Full record

ReviewOrthopaedic journal of sports medicine2020

Augmentation of Meniscal Repair With Platelet-Rich Plasma: A Systematic Review of Comparative Studies.

John W Belk, Matthew J Kraeutler, Stephen G Thon, Connor P Littlefield, John H Smith, Eric C McCarty

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
5.3field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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.

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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) augmentation does not result in more favourable outcomes in arthroscopic meniscal repair: a meta-analysis.Journal of orthopaedics and traumatology : official journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology · 2022
    Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Biologic Augmentation of Isolated Meniscal Repair.Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine · 2024
    Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

John W BelkUniversity of Colorado School of Medicine, Department of Orthopedics, Aurora, Colorado, USA.
Matthew J KraeutlerSt Joseph's University Medical Center, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Paterson, New Jersey, USA.
Stephen G ThonUniversity of Colorado School of Medicine, Department of Orthopedics, Aurora, Colorado, USA.
Connor P LittlefieldUniversity of Colorado School of Medicine, Department of Orthopedics, Aurora, Colorado, USA.
John H SmithUniversity of Colorado School of Medicine, Department of Orthopedics, Aurora, Colorado, USA.
Eric C McCartyUniversity of Colorado School of Medicine, Department of Orthopedics, Aurora, Colorado, USA.
University of Colorado Denver · USSt. Joseph’s University Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe effect of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) augmentation for meniscal repair (MR) is unclear, as current evidence is limited to small, mostly nonrandomized studies. PURPOSE: To systematically review the literature to evaluate the efficacy and safety of MR with PRP augmentation. STUDY

designSystematic review; Level of evidence, 3.

methodsA systematic review was performed by searching PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase to identify studies (level of evidence 1-3) that compared the clinical efficacy of MR performed with versus without PRP. The search phrase used was

resultsWe identified 6 studies (2 studies with level 1 evidence; 4 studies with level 3 evidence) that met inclusion criteria, for a total of 309 patients undergoing MR with PRP (mean age, 31.9 years) and 445 patients without PRP augmentation (mean age, 29.6 years). The mean follow-up was 32.8 months (range, 12-72 months). Overall, 17.0% of PRP patients experienced MR failure compared with 22.1% of non-PRP patients. No differences in VAS, Lysholm, or subjective IKDC scores were found between groups except in 1 study, in which postoperative subjective IKDC scores were significantly better in the PRP group (

conclusionThere are a limited number of high-quality studies comparing outcomes and healing rates between patients undergoing MR with versus without PRP augmentation. Based on the available evidence, patients undergoing MR with PRP augmentation experience similar clinical outcomes at midterm follow-up when compared with conventional MR, and additional studies are needed to determine the efficacy of MR augmented with PRP.

Indexed as

augmentationkneemeniscal repairplatelet-rich plasma

Identifiers

PMID32596408
PMCPMC7301666
OpenAlexW3035865024

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.