SynthesisPain research & management2026
Efficacy of Platelet-Rich Plasma Injections Versus Corticosteroid Injections in the Management of Chronic Low Back Pain Secondary to Sacroiliitis.
Synthesis in Pain research & management, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Efficacy of Platelet-Rich Plasma Injections Versus Corticosteroid Injections in the Management of Chronic Low Back Pain Secondary to Sacroiliitis.Pain research & management · 2026Pooled it
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
Abstract
objectivesLow back pain secondary to sacroiliitis (SI) significantly affects patients' quality of life. Although corticosteroid injections are commonly used, their effects may be temporary and have adverse effects. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has emerged as a potential alternative; however, comparative evidence remains limited. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the efficacy of PRP versus corticosteroid injections in managing chronic low back pain secondary to SI to provide evidence to guide clinical decision-making and optimize treatment strategies across different clinical contexts.
methodsThis systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A total of 265 articles were identified in the databases, of which 4 met the defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The search window was set to 2020-2025. The search window was limited to the past four years to capture recent and relevant evidence, given the field's rapid evolution.
resultsBased on the selected articles, corticosteroids offer short-term relief, while PRP shows greater and longer-lasting benefits. Additionally, PRP was associated with a lower need for additional interventions and rescue analgesia, demonstrating a sustained effect over time.
conclusionsCorticosteroids provide faster relief within 2-4 weeks, while PRP offers longer-lasting benefits from the eighth week up to 6 months. PRP also reduces the need for additional interventions and has no significant adverse effects, unlike corticosteroids. These findings suggest PRP as a safer long-term alternative for patients needing repeated or prolonged treatment. Future research should implement studies with a larger number of patients, longer observation periods, and follow-up to fully understand the benefits and limitations of both therapies.
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.