ReviewOrthopaedic journal of sports medicine2025
Platelet-Poor Plasma for Muscle Injuries: A Review of Mechanisms and Clinical Perspectives.
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. 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.
- Tendon, Ligament, and Muscle Injury, Osteotendinous, Myotendinous, and Muscle-to-Bone Junction Therapy Perspectives with Growth Factors and Stable Gastric Pentadecapeptide BPC 157-A Review.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Muscle injuries are a frequent challenge in professional sports, with hamstring injuries being particularly prevalent. Despite advances in rehabilitation protocols, recurrence rates remain high, and recovery timelines vary depending on injury location and severity. Purpose: To examine the roles of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and platelet-poor plasma (PPP) in muscle injury treatment, highlighting their biological differences and potential clinical applications. Study Design: Narrative review. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted, focusing on the biological properties of PRP and PPP, their effects on muscle regeneration, and clinical outcomes related to their use in muscle injury management. Results: PRP contains high concentrations of growth factors, including transforming growth factor-beta, myostatin, vascular endothelial growth factor, and platelet-derived growth factor, which promote cell proliferation and angiogenesis. However, its leukocyte content and associated pro-inflammatory cytokines may exacerbate inflammation, potentially increasing pain, delaying recovery, and raising the risk of heterotopic ossification. Conversely, PPP is rich in insulin-like growth factor-1 and hepatocyte growth factor, which modulate inflammation and fibrosis, promoting muscle regeneration. Basic science studies have demonstrated that PPP induces myoblast differentiation, whereas PRP primarily promotes myoblast proliferation, potentially favoring scar formation over true muscle tissue regeneration. Clinically, PPP has been explored as a treatment for muscle injuries, with some reports suggesting it may facilitate recovery and reduce reinjury risk. However, the limited availability of high-quality clinical trials prevents definitive conclusions about its efficacy compared with PRP. Conclusion: While both PRP and PPP offer biological advantages, PPP may present a favorable profile for muscle regeneration due to its ability to enhance differentiation while modulating inflammation. However, current clinical evidence remains limited, and further research is needed to establish definitive treatment guidelines.
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.