ArticleCureus2024
A Comparative Study of the Efficacy of Platelet-Rich Plasma (PRP) vs. Other Conservative Treatments for Lateral Epicondylitis.
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.
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.
- Article
- Platelet-Rich Plasma Injections are Associated with Higher Resource Utilization and Surgical Escalation Compared with Corticosteroids in Lateral Elbow Tendinopathy.Journal of orthopaedic case reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Lateral epicondylitis, also known as tennis elbow, is a degenerative condition that affects a significant portion of the adult population, particularly those between the ages of 35 and 55. Conventional treatments, including analgesics, physiotherapy, and bracing, often lead to a high recurrence rate. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) therapy has emerged as a promising alternative, offering regenerative benefits that may enhance tissue healing. This study evaluates the effectiveness of PRP injections compared to traditional conservative therapies in alleviating pain and improving function in individuals with chronic lateral epicondylitis. Methods This prospective observational study was conducted at Father Muller Medical College Hospital from April 2018 to August 2019. A total of 44 patients aged 18-60 years with chronic lateral epicondylitis were randomly assigned to two groups: PRP (n = 22) and conservative treatment (n = 22). The conservative group received a combination of physiotherapy, analgesics, and a counterforce brace. The primary outcome was measured using the Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation (PRTEE) score, assessed at baseline, four weeks, eight weeks, three months, and six months. The PRTEE score includes pain and function subscales. Data was analyzed using appropriate statistical methods, and significance was considered at p < 0.05. Results Both groups significantly improved pain and function during the first eight weeks. However, the PRP group demonstrated superior long-term outcomes. At three and six months, the PRP group had significantly lower pain scores (26.00 ± 3.55 and 19.55 ± 3.33, respectively, p < 0.001) compared to the conservative group (32.23 ± 3.75 and 33.64 ± 3.63). Similarly, the PRP group showed better functional improvement at six months (PRTEE function subscale: 20.00 ± 3.19 in PRP vs. 30.73 ± 4.11 in conservative, p < 0.001). No complications were reported in either group. Conclusions PRP injections provide superior long-term pain relief and functional recovery compared to conservative management in patients with chronic lateral epicondylitis. While conservative treatments are effective in the short term, PRP offers a more durable solution with no reported complications. These findings support the use of PRP as a viable alternative for the long-term management of lateral epicondylitis.
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.