ReviewJournal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma2026
Plasma versus autologous whole blood in the treatment of lateral epicondylitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.
Review in Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: To compare platelet-rich plasma and autologous whole blood in adults with lateral epicondylitis, evaluating functional improvement and pain reduction across follow-up periods. Methods: Randomized clinical trials enrolling adults with clinically confirmed lateral epicondylitis and a minimum symptom duration of three months were systematically identified by searching PubMed, ScienceDirect, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Functional improvement was prespecified as the primary outcome, whereas pain was the secondary outcome. Pooled effect estimates were obtained using random-effects meta-analyses conducted with Review Manager (RevMan) version 5.4.1, and between-study heterogeneity was quantified using the I Results: Four randomized clinical trials involving 322 participants were included, with 167 receiving platelet-rich plasma. Follow-up ranged from 1 to 12 months for function and 1 to 6 months for pain. No significant differences were observed between platelet-rich plasma and autologous whole blood for function, although a non-significant early trend favoring platelet-rich plasma was not sustained over time, with heterogeneity between 11% and 67%. Subgroup analysis showed no heterogeneity across follow-up durations (χ Conclusion: Platelet-rich plasma did not demonstrate statistically significant superiority over autologous whole blood for functional outcomes, although a non-significant tendency favoring platelet-rich plasma was observed in early follow-up. Given the limited number of included studies, these findings should be interpreted with caution and considered exploratory.
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.