ArticleCureus2025
Comparison of Platelet-Rich Plasma Properties Used in Athletic Musculoskeletal Conditions: A Clinical Practice Report.
Article in Cureus, 2025. 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
This study evaluates the properties of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) preparations used by a professional sports club's medical department for treating musculoskeletal conditions in athletes. PRP samples were prepared using 20 ml and 50 ml Hy-tissue® PRP Kits (Fidia Farmaceutici S.p.A., Abano Terme, Italy) from 13 total blood samples. They were analyzed to assess platelet (PLT), leukocyte, and red blood cell concentrations. Results showed both kits effectively concentrated PLT with an average enrichment factor of 2.9×, though the 50 ml kit produced higher total PLT counts (4.7 Bl) than the 20 ml kit (1.7 Bl). White and red blood cell levels were significantly reduced, indicating high PRP purity. DEPA (dose of injected PLT, efficiency of production, purity of the PRP, activation of the PRP) classification revealed a superior quality score, from A to D in the three prior parameters, for the 50 ml kit (BCA vs. CCA). Despite acceptable PLT concentration, the efficiency of PLT recovery was low across both kits. The findings underscore the importance of evaluating PRP characteristics to optimize therapeutic outcomes and highlight the need for protocol refinement to enhance preparation efficiency. These results advocate for standardized reporting and classification to support evidence-based application of PRP in sports medicine.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.