ReviewOrthopaedic journal of sports medicine2025
Efficacy and Safety of Platelet-Rich Plasma for Patients With Meniscal Injury: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Review in Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is widely used to promote healing and improve function in various musculoskeletal injuries. However, the efficacy and safety of PRP for meniscal injury remain unclear. Purpose: To evaluate the effects of PRP in patients with meniscal injury. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Wanfang, and CNKI databases. Randomized controlled trials comparing PRP with placebo or no additional treatment in adult patients with meniscal injury were included. Outcome measures included the visual analog scale for knee pain, Lysholm score, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), treatment failure, and complications. Data were pooled using a random-effects model by incorporating the influence of heterogeneity. Results: This meta-analysis included 18 randomized controlled trials involving a total of 1143 patients. The mean follow-up duration ranged from 3 to 12 months. PRP significantly reduced knee pain (mean difference [MD], -0.73; 95% CI, -0.91 to -0.55) and improved knee function, as indicated by higher Lysholm scores (MD, 6.77; 95% CI, 5.35 to 8.20) and KOOS (MD, 4.34; 95% CI, 1.35 to 7.32), and lower WOMAC scores (MD, -5.33; 95% CI, -8.10 to -2.56). Subgroup analyses suggested similar results in patients with and without concurrent knee osteoarthritis, with single and multiple PRP injection, and with follow-up duration of <12 and ≥12 months. In addition, PRP also reduced treatment failure rates (odds ratio, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.12 to 0.59), with no significant difference in complications. Conclusion: PRP is effective in reducing pain and improving knee function in patients with meniscal injury. Registration: CRD42024601679 (PROSPERO).
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.