SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2026
Comparison of the efficacy of platelet-rich plasma versus corticosteroid in the treatment of adhesive capsulitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis based on randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Beyond Corticosteroids: Ultrasound-Guided Regenerative and Hydrodissection Therapies for Adhesive Capsulitis.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Adhesive capsulitis (AC) often impairs patients' quality of life due to shoulder pain and restricted joint mobility. Intra-articular shoulder injection is a profound conservative treatment modality. Existing randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have reported conflicting results regarding the efficacy of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) versus corticosteroid (CS) injections. Therefore, a meta-analysis of the relevant RCTs is warranted. Methods: A systematic search was conducted across four databases (PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science) for articles published from their inception to September 15, 2025. RCTs comparing the efficacy of PRP versus CS injections for the treatment of AC were included. The primary outcomes were the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score and the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score. Secondary outcomes included range of motion (ROM): abduction, flexion, external rotation, and internal rotation. Results: This meta-analysis included a total of 13 studies involving 1,056 patients with AC. Among them, 531 patients were allocated to the PRP group and 525 to the CS group. No statistically significant differences were observed between the two groups in the VAS and DASH scores at 1 month, VAS score at 3 months, or flexion ROM. However, compared with the CS group, the PRP group demonstrated significantly superior outcomes in the VAS score at 6 months, DASH scores at 3 and 6 months, as well as in abduction, external rotation, and internal rotation. Specifically, significant differences were observed in: the 6-month VAS score (MD: -1.84, 95% CI: -2.57 to -1.10, Conclusion: Compared with CS, PRP for AC demonstrated significant advantages in pain relief, functional improvement, and range of motion recovery at the 6-month follow-up. However, the two treatments showed comparable efficacy in terms of pain relief at the 1- to 3-month follow-ups and functional improvement at the 1-month follow-up. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, CRD420251156731.
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.