Trial reportThe Laryngoscope2024
Prospective Outcomes After Serial Platelet-Rich Plasma (PRP) Injection in Vocal Fold Scar and Sulcus.
Trial report in The Laryngoscope, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Single Platelet Rich Plasma Glottic Injections in Vocal Pathology Demonstrate Long Term Benefits.The Laryngoscope · 2026Article
- Review
- The emerging role of platelet-rich plasma subepithelial infusion for vocal fold scar, sulcus, and atrophy.Brazilian journal of otorhinolaryngologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveVocal fold scar and sulcus pose significant treatment challenges with no current optimal treatment. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP), an autologous concentration of growth factors, holds promise for regenerating the superficial lamina propria. This study aims to evaluate the potential benefits of serial PRP injections on mucosal wave restoration and vocal function.
methodsIn a prospective clinical trial across two institutions, patients with vocal fold scar underwent four serial PRP injections, one month apart. Blinded independent laryngologists and expert listeners used pretreatment and one-month post-fourth injection videostroboscopy and CAPE-V assessments to evaluate mucosal wave and voice quality changes, respectively. Additionally, patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) were evaluated.
resultsIn the study, 15 patients received 55 PRP injections without adverse effects. Eight patients (53.3%) had mild, three patients (20%) had moderate, and four patients (26.7%) had severe scar. There was an average reduction of 8.7 points in post-treatment VHI-10 scores (p = 0.007). The raters observed an improvement in post-treatment voice in 73.4% of cases, and CAPE-V scores showed a reduction of 18.8 points on average (p = 0.036). The videostroboscopic VALI ratings showed an improvement in mucosal wave rating from 2.0 to 4.0. On average, the raters perceived the post-PRP exams to be better in 56.7% of cases.
conclusionsPRP has been validated as a safe autologous option for treatment of vocal fold scar. While results for mucosal wave and voice quality varied, there was a consistent improvement in PROMs. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3: Prospective cohort study, with blinded analysis Laryngoscope, 134:5021-5027, 2024.
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.