ReviewCureus2025
Effectiveness of Platelet-Rich Plasma Injection for Chronic Achilles Tendinopathy: An Umbrella Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Outcomes of Acute Achilles Tendon Repair with Platelet-Rich Plasma Augmentation: A Comprehensive Review of Comparative Studies.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Clinical Outcomes of Injectable Porcine Collagen in Diabetic Patients with Achilles Tendinopathy: A Retrospective Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Chronic Achilles tendinopathy (CAT) represents a prevalent overuse injury affecting athletes and active individuals, with conventional treatments showing variable success rates. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injection has emerged as a promising biologic therapy, theoretically promoting tendon regeneration through growth factor release. However, clinical evidence regarding PRP effectiveness remains controversial. This umbrella systematic review synthesized findings from systematic reviews and meta-analyses examining PRP injection effectiveness for CAT management. A comprehensive literature search was conducted across five major databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library) from inception until June 2025. Eight systematic reviews and meta-analyses published between 2018 and 2025 were included, encompassing 170-697 participants across primary studies. Methodological quality was assessed using AMSTAR 2 (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews) criteria. The predominant finding across reviews was the absence of statistically significant differences between PRP and control interventions for primary outcomes, including pain reduction (visual analog scale) and functional improvement (Victorian Institute of Sport Assessment-Achilles scores). While some reviews reported modest short-term improvements in pain scores at three to 12 weeks, these benefits were neither clinically meaningful nor sustained at longer follow-up periods. Tendon structural outcomes assessed via ultrasonography yielded inconsistent results, with substantial heterogeneity attributed to variability in PRP preparation methods, injection protocols, and outcome measurements. Safety profiles were generally favorable with minimal adverse events. The collective evidence fails to demonstrate PRP superiority over placebo or standard conservative treatments. Current evidence does not support routine PRP use as a first-line treatment for CAT, with established conservative interventions remaining the preferred therapeutic approach.
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.