Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34046304›Full record

ReviewJournal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma2021

Comparative analysis of leucocyte poor vs leucocyte rich platelet-rich plasma in the management of lateral epicondylitis: Systematic review & meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Sathish Muthu, Sandeep Patel, Preethi Selvaraj, Madhan Jeyaraman

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  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

4 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Sathish MuthuOrthopaedic Research Group, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India.
Sandeep PatelDepartment of Orthopaedics, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India.
Preethi SelvarajDepartment of Community Medicine, SRM Medical College Hospital and Research Centre, SRM University Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.
Madhan JeyaramanDepartment of Orthopaedics, School of Medical Sciences and Research, Sharda University, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh, India.
Orthopaedic Research Group · INPost Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research · INSharda University · INSRM University · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

STUDY

designSystematic Review & Meta-analysis.

objectivesWe aim to comparatively analyse the efficacy and safety of using leucocyte-poor platelet rich plasma (LP-PRP) against leucocyte-rich platelet rich plasma (LR-PRP) in the management of lateral epicondylitis. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe conducted independent and duplicate electronic database searches including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library till September 2020 for randomised controlled trials analyzing the efficacy and safety of LP-PRP and LR-PRP in the management of lateral epicondylitis. Visual Analog Score(VAS) for pain, Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) Score, Patient Reported Tennis-Elbow Evaluation (PRETEE) Score, Mayo Elbow Performance Score(MEPS) and adverse events were the outcomes analyzed. Analysis was performed in R-platform using OpenMeta[Analyst] software.

resultsWe performed a single arm meta-analysis of 26 studies involving 2034 patients. On analysis it was noted that significant improvement was noted in the VAS for pain (p < 0.001), DASH score (p < 0.001), PRETEE score (p < 0.001) and MEPS (p < 0.027) compared to their pre-operative state. No significant increase in adverse events were noted compared to the control group (p = 0.170). While stratifying the results based on the type of PRP used, no significant difference was noted between the use of LP-PRP or LR-PRP in any of the above-mentioned outcome measures.

conclusionPRP is a safe and effective treatment option for lateral epicondylitis with clinical improvements in pain and functional scores and both types of PRP (LR-PRP & LP-PRP) offer similar results.

Indexed as

Lateral epicondylitisMeta analysisPlatelet rich plasmaSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID34046304
PMCPMC8144683
OpenAlexW3165647491

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.