ReviewCureus2025
Efficacy of Platelet-Rich Plasma Augmentation in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Trials.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
This updated systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) augmentation in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). A comprehensive search of PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, trial registries, and grey literature up to August 13, 2025, identified 16 randomized controlled trials comprising 1,085 participants (545 PRP; 540 control) with follow-up durations ranging from 3 to 24 months. Compared with standard ACLR, PRP significantly reduced pain at three months (mean difference (MD) -0.76; 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.90 to -0.39) and six months (MD -0.67; 95% CI -1.24 to -0.11), but no difference remained at 12 months (MD -0.16; 95% CI -0.51 to 0.18). Functional outcomes demonstrated small, non-significant gains in Lysholm Knee Scoring Scale and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) scores at three and six months and no effect at 12 months, while the Tegner Activity Scale showed a modest but significant improvement at six months (MD 0.46; 95% CI 0.06 to 0.85) that disappeared thereafter. Tunnel widening at 12 months was non-significant for both tibial (MD 0.16; 95% CI -0.46 to 0.78) and femoral tunnels (MD 0.27; 95% CI -0.07 to 0.62). KT-1000 arthrometer (KT-1000) outcomes slightly favored control (MD 0.48; 95% CI 0.12 to 0.83), indicating minimally greater anterior-posterior stability without PRP. The certainty of evidence was moderate to high for pain outcomes and low to very low for functional and structural outcomes due to heterogeneity and small sample sizes. In summary, PRP augmentation provides modest short-term benefits in pain reduction and functional recovery but does not improve long-term stability, graft maturation, or tunnel integrity, and therefore should currently be considered an adjunct rather than a routine practice in ACLR.
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.