ArticleClinics in shoulder and elbow2025
Platelet rich plasma versus corticosteroids for lateral epicondylitis: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.
Article in Clinics in shoulder and elbow, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Short-term efficacy of physical interventions for lateral epicondylitis: a network meta-analysis based on multidimensional evaluation of pain and function.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2026Pooled it
- Ultrasound-guided injection strategies for lateral epicondylitis: a multicenter randomized comparison of corticosteroid, platelet-rich plasma, and ozone.Future science OA · 2026Article
- Therapeutic Efficacy of Combined Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy and Platelet-Rich Plasma Therapy in a Rat Model of Acute Achilles Tendinopathy.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2026Article
- A Prospective Randomized Controlled Study Comparing the Efficacy of Platelet Rich Plasma Injection versus Steroid Injection in Lateral Epicondylitis.Journal of orthopaedic case reports · 2026Article
- A Brief Overview and Update of Regenerative Medicine for the Treatment of Musculoskeletal Conditions.Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine · 2026Review
- A Randomized Controlled Trial of 1-Year Clinical Outcomes of a Single Platelet-Rich Plasma Injection Versus Corticosteroid for the Treatment of Lateral Elbow Tendinopathy.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2026Article
- Time-Dependent Efficacy and Safety of Percutaneous Treatments for Lateral Epicondylitis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.Journal of pain research · 2026Review
- Platelet rich plasma applications in orthopedics: A review of recent advances.World journal of orthopedics · 2025Review
- Biologic Therapies in the Management of Sports-Related Tendon and Ligament Injuries: A Narrative Review.Cureus · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLateral epicondylitis, colloquially known as tennis elbow, is a common cause of elbow pain and daily task disability. Caused by repetitive movement, it is typically a degenerative rather than inflammatory event and affects mostly middle-aged patients. Despite its good prognostic nature, its economic burden on the healthcare system encourages research on the efficacity of non-operative injection treatments. This article aims to compare the clinical effectiveness of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and corticosteroid (CS) injections in managing lateral epicondylitis.
methodsPubMed, Cochrane, and Google Scholar (pages 1-20) were searched up to March 2024. Only randomized controlled trials were included. The clinical outcomes evaluated were the visual analog scale (VAS) and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) score.
resultsTwenty-six randomized controlled trials with 1.877 patients were included in this meta-analysis. In terms of VAS scores, short-term results (<2 months) favored CS over PRP (P=0.03; mean difference [MD], 0.67; 95% CI, 0.05 to 1.28), whereas long-term results (>6 months) favored PRP (P<0.001; MD, -1.60; 95% CI, -2.01 to -1.20]). Intermediate-term results (2-6 months) showed no significant difference between injection treatments. In terms of DASH scores, short- and intermediate-term results showed no significant difference, whereas long-term results favored PRP (P<0.001; MD, -4.87; 95% CI, -7.69 to -2.06).
conclusionsCS provides significantly better short-term pain relief, while PRP provides better long-term functional improvement and clinical long-term pain relief. However, future studies should focus on other injection protocols or addition of other non-invasive modalities. Level of evidence: I.
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.