Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34901286›Full record

ReviewOrthopaedic journal of sports medicine2021

Systematic Review of Platelet-Rich Plasma for Rotator Cuff Repair: Are We Adhering to the Minimum Information for Studies Evaluating Biologics in Orthopaedics?

Madeleine G DeClercq, Alyson M Fiorentino, Haylie A Lengel, Joseph J Ruzbarsky, Sara K Robinson, Verena T Oberlohr, Kaitlyn E Whitney, Peter J Millett, Johnny Huard

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
5.6field-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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Non-Surgical Treatments for Rotator Cuff Tendinopathy: A Narrative Review.Journal of functional morphology and kinesiology · 2026
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Injection therapy in professional footballers.International orthopaedics · 2024
    Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. 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

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Madeleine G DeClercqCenter for Regenerative Sports Medicine, Steadman Philippon Research Institute, Vail, Colorado, USA.
Alyson M FiorentinoCenter for Regenerative Sports Medicine, Steadman Philippon Research Institute, Vail, Colorado, USA.
Haylie A LengelThe Steadman Clinic, Vail, Colorado, USA.
Joseph J RuzbarskyThe Steadman Clinic, Vail, Colorado, USA.
Sara K RobinsonCenter for Regenerative Sports Medicine, Steadman Philippon Research Institute, Vail, Colorado, USA.
Verena T OberlohrCenter for Regenerative Sports Medicine, Steadman Philippon Research Institute, Vail, Colorado, USA.
Kaitlyn E WhitneyCenter for Regenerative Sports Medicine, Steadman Philippon Research Institute, Vail, Colorado, USA.
Peter J MillettThe Steadman Clinic, Vail, Colorado, USA.
Johnny HuardCenter for Regenerative Sports Medicine, Steadman Philippon Research Institute, Vail, Colorado, USA.
Steadman Philippon Research Institute · USSteadman Clinic · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe therapeutic efficacy of orthobiologic therapies for rotator cuff repair is difficult to evaluate owing to reporting inconsistences. In response, the Minimum Information for Studies Evaluating Biologics in Orthopaedics (MIBO) guidelines were developed to ensure standard reporting on orthobiologic therapies. PURPOSE: To systematically review clinical studies evaluating platelet-rich plasma (PRP) for full-thickness rotator cuff repair and adherence to MIBO guidelines. STUDY

designScoping review; Level of evidence, 4.

methodsA search was performed according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines using PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library databases. Inclusion criteria were clinical studies reporting on rotator cuff tears (≥1 cm) surgically repaired with PRP. Patient demographics, biologic intervention, and adherence to the MIBO guidelines were systematically reviewed.

resultsA total of 19 studies (1005 patients) were included in this review. Across all studies, 58.5% of the MIBO checklist items for PRP were reported. Out of 47 checklist items, 19 were reported in over 85% of studies, whereas 22 were reported in less than half of studies. Details of whole-blood processing and characteristics, as well as PRP processing and characteristics, were reported inconsistently, and no study provided adequate information to enable the precise replication of preparation protocols for PRP.

conclusionThis systematic review highlights the current reporting deficiencies within the scientific literature of important variables for evaluating PRP for full-thickness rotator cuff repair. There was widespread variability among published studies that evaluate PRP for this application and, more specifically, studies were limited by inconsistent universal reporting of whole-blood and PRP processing and postprocessing characteristics. To improve our understanding of biologic efficacy and to promote repeatability, stricter adherence to the MIBO guidelines is necessary. We propose that the checklist limitations be addressed and that modification of the MIBO guidelines be considered to improve the reporting of individual components within certain categories.

Indexed as

Minimum Information for Studies Evaluating Biologics in Orthopaedics (MIBO)platelet-rich plasma (PRP)rotator cuff repair

Identifiers

PMID34901286
PMCPMC8655472
OpenAlexW4200055920

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.