ReviewClinics and practice2025
Collagen Injections for Rotator Cuff Diseases: A Systematic Review.
Review in Clinics and practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Intratendinous Porcine-Derived Type I Collagen Injections Result in Clinical and Radiographic Improvement of Rotator Cuff Tendinopathy 1 Year After Treatment.Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation · 2026Article
- Clinical Outcomes of Injectable Porcine Collagen in Diabetic Patients with Achilles Tendinopathy: A Retrospective Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Clinical evidence for low-molecular-weight collagen peptides in tendon and ligament tears: a systematic review with narrative synthesis.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- The Efficacy of Injectable Atelocollagen in Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Cureus · 2025Review
- Injectable Porcine Collagen in Musculoskeletal Disorders: A Delphi Consensus.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBecause of its anatomy and function, the rotator cuff (RC) is vulnerable to considerable morbidity. The prevalence of RC diseases (RCDs) among the general population is 5-39%, reaching over 30% in patients older than 60. The aim of the present systematic review is to investigate the effects of the use of collagen injections in the treatment of RCDs.
methodsA systematic search of scientific electronic databases (such as PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science) was performed up to November 2024, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Two independent authors conducted the search and assessed the articles. The inter-rater reliability for the quality assessment was measured using Cohen's kappa coefficient, while the Modified Coleman Methodology Score (CMS) was applied to evaluate the methodological quality of the articles included in this systematic review.
resultsA total of eight articles were included, with the overall quality of the included articles being evaluated as fair. Despite the use of different types of collagen and injection protocols, as well as the different scores applied, each included study showed clinically relevant improvements. However, given the high degree of heterogeneity of the included studies, we cannot draw conclusions regarding which type of collagen and injection protocol are best for RCD treatment. DISCUSSION: Collagen administration for RCDs seems to be effective at reducing pain and improving function, as well as the tendon structure, especially in partial tears and RC tendinopathy. High-quality, prospective studies with long-term follow-up are necessary to validate the findings of the articles included in this systematic review.
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.