SynthesisFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2025
Platelet-rich plasma in arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: a meta-analysis of biomaterial efficacy and future directions for personalized sports medicine.
Synthesis in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Rotator cuff tears represent a prevalent musculoskeletal challenge with high postoperative retear rates despite surgical advances. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has emerged as a promising biological adjunct in arthroscopic repair, though clinical evidence remains inconsistent regarding its efficacy in improving structural and functional outcomes. Methods: This PRISMA-guided meta-analysis evaluated 13 randomized controlled trials (n = 880 patients) comparing PRP-augmented versus conventional arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. Primary outcomes included retear rates and functional scores (UCLA, Constant, SST, ASES, VAS). Statistical analysis employed fixed/random-effects models with subgroup analyses of PRP formulations and tear characteristics. Results: PRP augmentation significantly improved functional outcomes, with mean differences of 1.82 points (95% CI: 1.13-2.51) for UCLA scores, 2.31 points (95% CI: 1.02-3.61) for Constant scores, and 0.43 points (95% CI: 0.11-0.75) for SST scores (all p < 0.01). VAS pain scores decreased by 0.23 points (95% CI: -0.41 to -0.05, p = 0.01). However, retear rates showed no significant reduction (RR = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.48-1.05, p = 0.09). Benefits were most pronounced in medium/large tears treated with leukocyte-poor PRP and double-row repairs (I
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.