SynthesisJournal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews2026
Academic Influence and Industry Funding in Platelet-Rich Plasma Injections: Coauthorship Network Analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPlatelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections have gained popularity in the fields of orthopaedics and sports medicine despite inconsistent evidence regarding clinical efficacy. Concerns have placed a role on industry funding in shaping the development of PRP injection literature. Therefore, the aim of this study is to investigate the relationship between industry funding and academic influence in PRP injection research.
methodsA systematic review was done of PRP injection literature published between 2017 and 2024, all from Q1 (top quartile) peer-reviewed journals based on Scopus journal ranking metrics. Overall, 81 studies were included in final analysis. Authors were linked to the Open Payments Database (OPD) and were identified through their national provider identifier (NPI) number. A coauthorship network analysis was used to map patterns of collaboration among authors in the field.
resultsThe majority of studies identified were randomized control trials (38.3%). From 2017 to 2024, total industry funding to PRP authors totaled $36.1 million. Markedly more general payments than research payments were there (P < 0.05). Funding did not markedly correlate with publication count (r = 0.368, P = 0.40). No notable association was found between funding type and study outcome for either general (P = 0.482) or research (P = 0.481) payments. A centralized structure of 621 unique authors revealed that the top 10% of contributors accounted for more than 40% of all betweenness activity among these authors.
conclusionThe majority of industry funding in PRP injection research is directed as general payments. A small cohort of authors hold disproportionate influence over the community.
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.