ReviewJournal of Taibah University Medical Sciences2025
Efficacy of platelet-rich plasma versus corticosteroid injections in recovery from plantar fasciitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07626723 (The Effect of ESWT Session Count on Clinical Parameters in the Treatment of Chronic Plantar Fasciitis; Randomized Controlled Study), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
The Effect of ESWT Session Count on Clinical Parameters in the Treatment of Chronic Plantar Fasciitis; Randomized Controlled Study
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Chronic plantar fasciitis (CPF) is a degenerative condition causing persistent heel pain, making clinical management challenging. Among treatment options, the comparative effectiveness of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and corticosteroid injections (CSIs) remains unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluate their impact on pain relief and functional improvement. Methods: Following PRISMA guidelines, this review analyzed eight studies involving 599 participants. Pain and function were assessed using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and the American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society (AOFAS) score. Study quality was evaluated using the Risk of Bias 2 tool, and both common- and random-effects models were applied. Results: Pain relief results were mixed. The common-effects model favored PRP (MD = -0.7166), but the random-effects model showed no significant difference (MD = 0.4657). For functional improvement, both models indicated PRP as superior (AOFAS score: MD = 16.13, 95% CI [14.70, 17.55]), with moderate variability (I² = 48.7%). Conclusions: PRP shows promise in improving function and potentially providing better pain relief compared to CSIs for CPF. While study variability requires careful interpretation, PRP's functional benefits support its potential as a valuable treatment. Further research with standardized protocols and diverse populations is needed to confirm its clinical effectiveness.
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.