Trial reportScientific reports2026
Effect of platelet-rich plasma on pain, function, and graft maturation after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a prospective, randomized controlled trial.
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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
To determine the effects of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) on pain relief, functional recovery, and graft maturation after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). Therapeutic RCT. In this randomized controlled trial (RCT), 54 patients undergoing ACLR were prospectively allocated to the PRP group (n = 27) or the control group (n = 27). PRP was injected around the graft during surgery and at 1, 2, and 3 weeks postoperatively in the PRP group; the rest of the surgical and rehabilitation protocol was the same in both groups. The primary efficacy endpoint was the time to achieve significant pain relief (defined as a visual analog scale [VAS] score ≤ 3). The secondary endpoints were the Lysholm score, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, and graft signal intensity on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) at the 12-month follow-up. The primary endpoint-time to achieve meaningful pain relief (VAS ≤ 3)-was not met; no significant difference was found between the 2 groups (2.56 ± 1.05 vs. 2.93 ± 1.27 days, P = 0.248). However, the PRP group showed higher Lysholm scores (91.04 ± 6.44 vs. 85.74 ± 10.60, P = 0.031) and IKDC scores (92.30 ± 5.53 vs. 83.59 ± 13.11, P = 0.02), and reduced MRI signal intensity in the graft midbody (P = 0.021) and distal third (P = 0.006). The primary endpoint was not met: PRP did not accelerate early pain relief (time to VAS ≤ 3) compared with the control group. However, PRP significantly improved short-term functional outcomes and promoted graft ligamentization after ACLR, independent of graft diameter.
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.