ArticleJournal of experimental orthopaedics2026
Systematic reviews in PRP-augmented meniscal repair have limited methodological quality: A systematic overview.
Article in Journal of experimental orthopaedics, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the quality of the existing evidence on platelet-rich plasma (PRP) augmented meniscal repair using a validated appraisal tool, A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2), and to offer guidance on how the findings of available systematic reviews should be interpreted. Study design: Systematic review. Methods: Five databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, OvidMedline and Scopus) were searched from inception until August 2024 for systematic reviews analysing the role of PRP in meniscal repair. Methodological quality was assessed using Oxford Levels of Evidence and AMSTAR 2 grading. This review was conducted with adherence to PRISMA's guidelines for study selection and reporting. Results: Thirteen systematic reviews, published between 2020 and 2024, met inclusion criteria, analysing four to nine studies each. Nine performed meta-analyses, with study years ranging from 2014 to 2023. The methodological quality varied, with evidence levels ranging from I to IV. Four reviews conducted sensitivity analysis, four performed subgroup analysis, and one assessed publication bias. All reviews demonstrated critical methodological flaws according to AMSTAR-2, with 11 (84.6%) rated 'critically low' and two 'low' quality. There was substantial inconsistency in reporting complications and reoperation rates in systematic reviews. Conclusion: The quality of existing systematic reviews on PRP augmentation for meniscal repair is limited. As a result, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that PRP provides significant clinical or radiological benefit in meniscal repair. Therefore, we recommend cautious interpretation of the available evidence and stress on the need for high quality systematic reviews to pool the available evidence. Level of Evidence: Level II.
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.