ReviewClinical rheumatology2026
Evidence for a time-dependent pain response to platelet-rich plasma versus corticosteroid injection in lateral epicondylitis: a cluster-stratified systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Review in Clinical rheumatology, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCorticosteroid and platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections are both used for lateral elbow tendinopathy, with conflicting evidence on the temporal profile of their comparative efficacy.
objectivesTo characterise the time-dependent pain response to PRP versus corticosteroid and to formally test whether this response varies with follow-up time. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing PRP with corticosteroid injection and reporting Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) pain, with at least ten participants per arm. INFORMATION SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, Scopus, and Web of Science, searched to April 2026. RISK OF BIAS: Assessed at the outcome level using RoB 2 for the VAS pain result of each trial. SYNTHESIS
methodsRandom-effects meta-analysis (REML, Knapp-Hartung correction) within four pre-specified follow-up clusters, followed by a random-effects meta-regression formally testing the treatment-by-time trend. INCLUDED STUDIES: Six trials, 338 participants (180 PRP, 158 corticosteroid).
methodsSix randomised controlled trials comparing PRP with corticosteroid and reporting Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) pain were identified through MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, Scopus and Web of Science (to April 2026). Scores were pooled within four pre-specified clusters (≤ 4 weeks; 5-11 weeks; 12-23 weeks; ≥ 24 weeks) using a random-effects model with restricted maximum likelihood (REML) estimation and Knapp-Hartung correction. Risk of bias was assessed at the outcome level using RoB 2; certainty of evidence was graded using GRADE.
resultsAcross 338 participants (180 PRP, 158 corticosteroid), corticosteroid was favoured at ≤ 4 weeks (MD + 1.88; 95% CI 1.05-2.71; p = 0.006; I LIMITATIONS: Repeated within-trial observations across clusters violate independence assumptions, so the meta-regression and temporal trajectory are descriptive/hypothesis-generating rather than a formal between-study interaction test; the within-trial concordance analysis did not reach significance (p = 0.063).
conclusionsThese data suggest, and now formally support via meta-regression, a time-dependent reversal in comparative efficacy. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: I.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42859367What 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.