ArticleCureus2024
A Comparison of the Results of Platelet-Rich Plasma Injection Versus the Results of Corticosteroid Injections in De-Quervain Tenosynovitis.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The Use of Platelet-Rich Plasma for De Quervain's Tenosynovitis:Saudi medical journal · 2026Pooled it
- De Quervain Tendinopathy: Anatomical Prognostic Indicators of Corticosteroid Injection Success.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDe Quervain tenosynovitis (DQT) is a condition that affects the first extensor compartment of the wrist, resulting in stenosing tenosynovitis. This work aimed to evaluate the effects of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injection in the treatment of DQT in comparison with corticosteroid (CS) injections.
methodsThis study was carried out on 40 DQT patients aged above 18 years old of both sexes, based on a combination of clinical symptoms and signs including persistent tenderness on the radial styloid, swelling on the radial styloid, positive provocative tests such as the Finkelstein test, and patients with failed medical treatment. Patients were divided into two equal groups: group I and group II. Group I was injected with PRP, and group II was injected with CS. Follow-ups were conducted at two weeks and six months.
resultsThere were statistically significant differences among both groups regarding the visual analog scale (VAS), and Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (QuickDASH-9) score. However, complications were statistically insignificant between both groups. After injection, CS was better than PRP after two weeks, but PRP was superior to CS after six months concerning QuickDASH-9 and VAS. These differences were statistically significant.
conclusionsCS is more effective than PRP in the short term (two weeks) and PRP is more effective in the intermediate term (six months). Both modalities are safe; however, PRP is relatively safer than CS.
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.