ArticleShoulder & elbow2024
Is platelet-rich plasma a new solution for shoulder adhesive capsulitis? A systematic scoping review of the literature.
Article in Shoulder & elbow, 2024. 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.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has shown promising results for adhesive shoulder capsulitis (AC) in pre-clinical models. The aim of this review is to investigate the clinical outcomes of using PRP in AC. Materials and Methods: We conducted a systematic scoping review of the literature using bibliographic databases from inception until the 9 Results: We screened a total of 470 results and 6 were included in the final synthesis. Studies included data of 578 patients with 263 patients receiving PRP (45.5%). All studies used PRP as part of non-operative treatment. PRP was compared to another intervention in all six studies. Four of these studies found PRP to be more effective. No major adverse effects were reported in any study. Conclusion: PRP is a safe treatment option that can be added to the investigative treatment arsenal of AC. Despite showing some favorable results, several limitations and patient-centered questions remain to be addressed by future studies. Level of Evidence: IV.
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.