SynthesisSaudi medical journal2026
The Use of Platelet-Rich Plasma for De Quervain's Tenosynovitis:
Synthesis in Saudi medical journal, 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
Introduction: De Quervain's tenosynovitis (DQT) is a painful wrist condition that impairs daily activities. Corticosteroid (CS) injections are commonly used for symptom relief, but their effects may diminish over time. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has emerged as a regenerative alternative that promotes tissue healing rather than merely suppressing inflammation. This systematic review and limited meta-analysis compare the efficacy and safety of PRP versus CS injections in DQT. A limited meta-analysis was chosen due to the high heterogeneity between studies (I Methodology: A comprehensive literature search identified six studies comparing PRP and CS injections. Pain and functional outcomes were assessed using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) score, and Mayo Wrist Score (MWS). Statistical significance was analyzed, with follow-up durations ranging from 2 weeks to one year. The risk of bias was evaluated using Cochrane and ROBINS-I tools. Results: Both PRP and CS significantly reduced pain; however, PRP provided superior long-term relief. The VAS scores improved in all studies, with PRP showing significantly greater reduction at 6 months ( Conclusion: The PRP and CS effectively reduce pain, but preliminary evidence suggests PRP may offer longer-lasting symptom relief than corticosteroids; however, findings are limited by small sample sizes, study heterogeneity, and low certainty of evidence. Further high-quality trials with standardized PRP protocols are warranted.
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.