ArticleActa bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis2020
Autologous Platelet Rich Plasma (PRP) in the treatment of elbow epicondylitis and plantar fasciitis: medium to long term clinical outcome.
Article in Acta bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimPlatelet-Rich-Plasma (PRP) is a popular biological therapy especially used to regenerate different musculoskeletal tissues by releasing growth-factors and cytokines promoting cell proliferation, chemotaxis, differentiation, and angiogenesis. The aim was to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and safety of PRP for Lateral-Epicondylitis (LE) of the elbow and Plantar-Fasciitis (PF).
methodsA retrospective study was conducted including patients treated with a single topic autologous-PRP-injection between 1-1-2009 and 7-18-2019 for LE or PF at our institution; patients operated for the same problem, patients refusing the study or not traceable were excluded. Patients were assessed with VAS for pain and clinical scales.
results33 patients were treated with PRP and 13 (8F, 5M) included: 4LE and 9PF for a total of 16 cases. The average pain level was 0.61±0.63: 1±1.41 for LE and 0,44±0 for PF. No significant side effect was reported. 4 PRP-treatments failed: 2LE and 2PF. OES and PRTEE gave excellent results for elbow. Average foot scores were AOFAS 98.2±5 and FADI 91.3±1. Patients were stratified and compared according to plantar arch conformation, follow-up length, healing time, time from diagnosis to PRP-treatment, therapies before PRP (physiotherapy, steroid infiltration or shock-waves), risk factors (standing work, sport, age, sex).
conclusionsAs in other studies, our results do not allow to draw sufficiently valid conclusions regarding the effectiveness and safety of PRP in the treatment of LE and PF: in particular the statistical significance is limited by the small sample size. PRP can be chosen as a non-first-line treatment for LE and PF.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.