ArticleScientific reports2025
Clinical application of ultrasound-guided platelet-rich plasma gel in the treatment of supraspinatus tendon tears: a single-center retrospective study.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
To explore the clinical significance of ultrasound-guided platelet-rich plasma (PRP) gel in the treatment of supraspinatus tendon tears. 82 patients with mild or moderate supraspinatus tendon tears were divided into three groups and were administered with different treatments. VAS scores, Constant-Murley scores, fat infiltration, as well as the treatment efficacy and incidence of adverse reactions were evaluated. At 3 months postoperatively, PRP gel group (2.07 ± 0.52 vs. 2.80 ± 0.85, t = 3.84, P = 0.0003) and PRP group (2.33 ± 0.55 vs. 2.80 ± 0.85, t = 2.33, P = 0.02) showed lower VAS scores than sodium hyaluronate group. At 6 months postoperatively, the PRP gel group revealed significantly lower VAS scores than both PRP group (2.13 ± 0.57 vs. 2.67 ± 0.71, t = 3.07, P = 0.003) and sodium hyaluronate group (2.13 ± 0.57 vs. 3.17 ± 1.02, t = 4.67, P < 0.0001). At 3 and 6 months postoperatively, the PRP gel group exhibited statistically higher Constant-Murley scores compared to both the PRP and sodium hyaluronate groups (P < 0.05). At 6 months after surgery, musculoskeletal ultrasound revealed that PRP gel and PRP groups displayed lower fat infiltration in the supraspinatus muscle than those in sodium hyaluronate group (1.86 ± 0.52 vs. 1.96 ± 0.64 vs. 2.32 ± 0.55, F = 5.06, P = 0.008). Additionally, at this time point, efficacy rate for patients in PRP gel group was significantly higher than that observed in either PRP group or sodium hyaluronate group (93.10% vs. 80.77% vs. 66.67%, χ
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.