ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
Comparison of two types of platelet-rich plasma in rotator cuff injury: study protocol for a randomized clinical trial.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has been widely used in the treatment of rotator cuff tendinopathy. Due to the lack of unified standards for PRP preparation and clinical instructions, its efficacy remains controversial. Purpose: We aimed to conduct a pragmatic comparison of two commonly used composite PRP formulations with different platelet (PLT) and leukocyte concentrations to provide clinical evidence for the optimal PRP formulation in the treatment of rotator cuff injury (RCI). Methods: A prospective, single-center, participant-blinded, outcome-assessor-blinded, and statistician-blinded randomized controlled trial with a 12-month follow-up investigating PRP in RCI will be conducted at Southwest Medicine University. Participants who choose PRP treatment will be randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to either group. Clinical assessments will be performed at baseline (2 days before PRP injection) and 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after the first injection. The primary outcomes include the Chinese version of the Constant-Murley Score (CMS) and the visual analog scale (VAS). Secondary outcomes include imaging changes assessed by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasound (US) scanning, serum cytokine measurements, the 12-Item Short Form (SF-12), and adverse events (AEs). Statistical analysis will be performed according to the intention-to-treat (ITT) principle. Implications: The results will provide new evidence for the optimal PRP formulation for RCI in clinical practice. Furthermore, we will investigate multiple outcomes, including clinical, functional, structural, and inflammatory changes after PRP injection. Trial registration: https://www.chictr.org.cn/searchproj.html?title=&officialname=&subjectid=®status=®no=ChiCTR2500113374&secondaryid=&applier=&studyleader=&createyear=&sponsor=&secsponsor=&sourceofspends=&studyailment=&studyailmentcode=&studytype=&studystage=&studydesign=&recruitmentstatus=&gender=&agreetosign=&measure=&country=&province=&city=&institution=&institutionlevel=&intercode=ðicalcommitteesanction=&whetherpublic=&minstudyexecutetime=&maxstudyexecutetime=&btngo=btn, This study was registered in the Chinese clinical trial registry (ChiCTR2500113374).
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.