ReviewJournal of experimental orthopaedics2026
The effects of platelet-rich plasma therapy on outcomes after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To determine whether platelet-rich plasma (PRP) improves outcomes after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). Methods: MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase, Scopus, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature database were searched through 16 July 2026 for comparative studies of PRP in primary ACLR. Outcomes included International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) and Lysholm scores, pain measured with a visual analogue scale, instrumented knee stability and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings. Random-effects meta-analyses used restricted maximum likelihood estimation with Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman adjustments. Post hoc sensitivity analyses included randomized controlled trials only. Certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Results: Seventeen studies were included. In analyses combining randomized and nonrandomized studies, PRP was associated with small improvements in IKDC scores at 6 months (mean difference [MD], 1.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.31-3.01) and 12 months (MD, 2.37; 95% CI, 1.19-3.54). These differences were no longer statistically significant in randomized-trial analyses. No robust differences were observed in Lysholm scores at 3, 6 or 12 months. A small late post-operative Lysholm difference persisted in the randomized-trial analysis but was based on two trials and was clinically trivial. Pain at approximately 12 months did not differ between groups (MD, -0.60; 95% CI, -1.64 to 0.44). No consistent benefits were demonstrated for objective knee stability or MRI outcomes. Certainty of evidence ranged from very low to low. Conclusions: PRP does not provide consistent or clinically meaningful benefits after ACLR. Current evidence does not support its routine use. 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.