Trial reportScientific reports2026
Effect of BMAC-PRP augmentation on repair of large rotator cuff tears: a clinical evaluation among different age groups.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The use of orthobiologic augmentation, including platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMAC), has gained increasing attention in rotator cuff repair; however, evidence supporting their combined use remains limited and inconsistent. This prospective randomized controlled study evaluated the clinical efficacy of PRP and combined PRP with BMAC (BMAC + PRP) following arthroscopic repair of large full-thickness rotator cuff tears (3-5 cm). A total of 93 patients were allocated into three groups: control (n = 33), PRP (n = 30), and BMAC + PRP (n = 30). Clinical outcomes were assessed using the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score (primary outcome), visual analogue scale (VAS), and Constant score at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months. To address baseline imbalances, propensity score-based overlap weighting (ATO) and weighted ANCOVA were performed. All groups demonstrated significant improvement in pain and functional outcomes over time. In unadjusted analyses, early differences were observed at 3 months; however, after adjustment using overlap weighting and baseline covariates, no statistically significant differences were observed between groups at 6 months for ASES, VAS, or Constant scores. Exploratory age-stratified analyses suggested potential trends toward improved outcomes in patients aged > 55 years in the BMAC + PRP group, although these findings were attenuated after adjustment and should be interpreted cautiously. These findings indicate that, despite theoretical biological complementarity, the addition of BMAC to PRP does not confer clinically meaningful short-term benefit after repair of large rotator cuff tears. The results challenge the assumption of additive efficacy in combined orthobiologic strategies and underscore the need for biologically stratified trials to identify patient subsets that may derive benefit. Longer-term and mechanistically integrated studies are required to define the role of combined biologic augmentation in tendon regeneration.Trial registration: The patients were registered in the institutional board registry of Hallym University Medical Center (registry number 138-82-02667). The study was registered with the International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) 69,088,783.
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.