ReviewCureus2025
Short-Term Relief or Long-Term Repair: A Narrative Review of Corticosteroid and Platelet-Rich Plasma Injections in Rotator Cuff Tendinopathy.
Review in Cureus, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Rotator cuff tendinopathy is a common cause of shoulder pain and disability in adults over 40. Corticosteroid injections provide short-term pain relief but may impair tendon healing with repeated use. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) aims to promote tissue repair; however, comparative evidence remains heterogeneous. We conducted a narrative review of comparative studies of corticosteroid versus PRP injections for rotator cuff tendinopathy. Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and PubMed were searched for English-language studies (2010-25). Eligible designs included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), prospective comparative studies, and systematic reviews/meta-analyses. Of 263 records, 60 full texts were screened, and 17 studies were included. Reviews/meta-analyses consistently found corticosteroids superior for short-term relief (<3 months), with several suggesting PRP may be favoured for mid- to long-term outcomes (6-12 months), though results were inconsistent. Among RCTs, early evidence showed no benefit of PRP over placebo, whereas more recent trials reported improved pain and function with PRP versus corticosteroids; other RCTs found no difference. Prospective studies generally suggested more sustained outcomes with PRP. Heterogeneity in PRP preparation and protocols limits comparability. Corticosteroids remain useful for rapid symptom control, but benefits wane and repeated use may pose risks. PRP may offer more durable improvements for selected patients, albeit with variable effect sizes across studies and higher cost.
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.