ArticleClinics in shoulder and elbow2025
Prolotherapy is not superior to control or placebo-based conservative treatments for rotator cuff tendinopathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Clinics in shoulder and elbow, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the efficacy of prolotherapy compared to control or placebo-based treatments.
methodsA comprehensive search of PubMed, Ovid, and Scopus was conducted up to April 2025. Inclusion criteria encompassed clinical studies comparing prolotherapy with control or placebo treatments and evaluating outcomes such as pain, function, and range of motion.
resultsEight studies involving 431 participants met the inclusion criteria. Patient-reported outcomes, including pain visual analog scale and Shoulder Pain and Disability Index, showed no statistically significant differences between prolotherapy and controls. Prolotherapy demonstrated a small but statistically significant improvement in shoulder abduction (mean difference, 7.08°; 95% CI, 2.49°-11.66°). Other range of motion measures, such as forward flexion, internal rotation, and external rotation, showed no significant differences. Radiographic outcomes, including tendon thickness and elasticity, suggested potential structural benefits but did not consistently translate to clinical improvements.
conclusionsProlotherapy is not superior to control treatments for rotator cuff tendinopathy. While it offers minor gains in shoulder abduction, its clinical benefits are limited. Level of evidence: III.
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.