ArticleJournal of orthopaedics and sports medicine2026
Comparing Regenerative Biologics and Standard Pharmacotherapy for Chronic Rotator Cuff Tendinopathy: A Study of PRP, Cell-Based, and Peptide Interventions.
Article in Journal of orthopaedics and sports medicine, 2026. 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
Abstract
Chronic rotator cuff tendinopathy is a degenerative condition characterized by persistent shoulder pain, weakness, and functional limitation. Conventional pharmacologic therapies-including nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and corticosteroid injections-are commonly used but provide only short-term symptom relief without addressing underlying tendon degeneration, and may negatively affect tendon integrity. These limitations have prompted increasing interest in regenerative therapies aimed at promoting tissue repair and durable clinical improvement. This literature review evaluates and compares the clinical outcomes, safety profiles, and practical considerations of regenerative therapies-specifically platelet-rich plasma, mesenchymal stem cell-based interventions, and peptide-based therapies-relative to traditional pharmacologic management for chronic rotator cuff tendinopathy. A comprehensive review of randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and consensus guidelines was conducted to assess pain relief, functional outcomes, tendon structural integrity, safety, and clinical applicability of pharmacologic versus regenerative treatment strategies. Pharmacologic treatments, particularly NSAIDs and corticosteroid injections, demonstrate limited efficacy beyond short-term pain reduction and do not promote tendon healing; repeated corticosteroid use is associated with tendon weakening and inferior long-term outcomes. In contrast, PRP consistently provides superior intermediate- and long-term improvements in pain and function compared with corticosteroids, with favorable safety profiles. Mesenchymal stem cell therapies show promising regenerative potential, including structural tendon improvement and sustained symptom relief, though evidence is limited by heterogeneity, cost, and regulatory constraints. Peptide-based therapies represent an emerging modality with encouraging preclinical and early clinical data but remain insufficiently validated for routine use. Regenerative therapies-particularly platelet-rich plasma and mesenchymal stem cell-based interventions-offer safer and more durable alternatives to conventional pharmacologic management for select patients with chronic rotator cuff tendinopathy who have failed conservative care. However, widespread clinical adoption is limited by variability in protocols, regulatory barriers, and a lack of large-scale, high-quality randomized trials. Further research is required to standardize treatment approaches, refine patient selection, and establish long-term efficacy.
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.