ReviewCureus2024
Assessing Standardisation in Platelet-Rich Plasma (PRP) Injections for the Management of Greater Trochanteric Pain Syndrome (GTPS): A Systematic Review of the Available Literature.
Review in Cureus, 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.
- Hysteroscopic Cold Knife Separation Combined with Autologous Platelet Rich Plasma for the Treatment of Intrauterine Adhesions: A Comparative Study.International journal of women's health · 2026Article
- Mitochondrial Transfer from Human Platelets to Rat Dental Pulp-Derived Fibroblasts in the 2D In Vitro System: Additional Implication in PRP Therapy.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Greater trochanteric pain syndrome (GTPS) is a prevalent musculoskeletal condition characterised by lateral hip pain and reduced function. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections have gained attention as a potential treatment due to their regenerative properties. However, variability in PRP preparation methods and insufficient standardisation in the literature complicate the evaluation of its efficacy and reproducibility. This systematic review aims to assess the level of standardisation in PRP injection protocols for GTPS, focusing on preparation methods, injection techniques, and reported outcomes. A systematic review was conducted using comprehensive searches of major databases. Inclusion criteria targeted randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating PRP for GTPS in adults. Four eligible RCTs were identified, and data were extracted on PRP preparation methods, injection protocols, and reported outcomes. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) tool. The included studies demonstrated significant heterogeneity in PRP preparation methods, including centrifugation speeds (1,100 gravitational force (g) to 3,850 revolutions per minute (rpm)), blood volumes (25-54 mL), and platelet concentrations (9.23 × 10⁹/L to 1232 × 10⁹/L). Injection sites varied from the gluteal tendons to the trochanteric bursa, with volumes ranging from 4 mL to 7 mL. Only one study conducted ultrasound-guided injections into the tendon. Despite the variability, two studies reported significant improvements in pain and function, while two found no difference compared to the control. This review highlights the lack of standardisation in PRP preparation and injection protocols for GTPS. Standardised guidelines are urgently needed to improve comparability across studies and optimise clinical outcomes. Future research should establish consensus on PRP preparation, classification, and reporting standards to advance its clinical application.
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.