scholarly journals Can platelet-rich plasma injections provide better pain relief and functional outcomes in persons with common shoulder diseases: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Author(s):  
Apurba Barman ◽  
Archana Mishra ◽  
Rituparna Maiti ◽  
Jagannatha Sahoo ◽  
Kaustav Basu Thakur ◽  
...  

Background: To evaluate the efficacy of autologous platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections in the treatment of common shoulder diseases.Methods: The PubMed, Medline, and Central databases and trial registries were searched from their inception to July 2020 for randomized controlled trials of autologous PRP injections for shoulder diseases versus placebo or any control intervention. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed in the selection, analysis, and reporting of findings. The primary outcome was pain intensity (visual analog scale), and secondary outcomes were changes in function and quality of life (QoL). Results: A total of 17 randomized controlled trials of PRP versus control were analyzed. From 8–12 weeks to ≥1 year, PRP injections were associated with better pain relief and functional outcomes than control interventions. PRP injections were also associated with greater QoL, with an effect size of 2.61 (95% confidence interval, 2.01–14.17) at medium-term follow-up. Compared with placebo and corticosteroid injections, PRP injections provide better pain relief and functional improvement. In subgroup analyses, trials in which PRP was prepared by the double centrifugation technique, the platelet concentration in the PRP was enriched ≥5 times, leucocyte-rich PRP was used, or an activating agent was used before application reported the most effective pain relief at 6–7 months. Conclusions: PRP injections could provide better pain relief and functional outcomes than other treatments for persons presenting with common shoulder diseases. PRP injections have a greater capacity to improve shoulder-related QoL than other interventions.

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 232596712097328
Author(s):  
Liu-yan Nie ◽  
Kun Zhao ◽  
Jiaqi Ruan ◽  
Jing Xue

Background: The effectiveness of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections for knee osteoarthritis and the effects of leukocyte-poor PRP (LP-PRP) versus leukocyte-rich PRP (LR-PRP) are still controversial. Purpose: To assess the effectiveness of different PRP injections through a direct and indirect meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 1. Methods: A systematic literature search of electronic databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE) was performed to locate randomized controlled trials published through March 2019 that compared PRP with control treatment. A random-effects meta-analysis was conducted to synthesize the evidence, and meta-regression analyses were conducted to determine the influence of trial characteristics. An indirect comparison was performed to assess the effects of LP-PRP and LR-PRP compared with hyaluronic acid (HA). Results: A total of 21 trials were included. A clinically important benefit for pain relief was seen for intra-articular PRP compared with intra-articular saline (standardized mean difference [SMD] = –1.38 [95% CI, –2.07 to –0.70]; P < .0001; I 2 = 37%) and corticosteroid solution injection (SMD = –2.47 [95% CI, –3.34 to –1.61]; P < .00001; I 2 = 47%). As a result of heterogeneity ( I 2 = 89%), there was no conclusive effect compared with HA, even though the pooling effect provided clinically relevant pain relief (SMD = –0.59 [95% CI, –0.97 to –0.21]; P = .003). Indirect meta-analysis showed that there was no significant difference between LR-PRP and LP-PRP. Conclusion: PRP injections are beneficial for pain relief and functional improvement in knee osteoarthritis. Larger, randomized high-quality studies are needed to compare the effects of LP-PRP and LR-PRP.


Healthcare ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 479
Author(s):  
Tatiana Sidiropoulou ◽  
Kalliopi Christodoulaki ◽  
Charalampos Siristatidis

A pre-procedural ultrasound of the lumbar spine is frequently used to facilitate neuraxial procedures. The aim of this review is to examine the evidence sustaining the utilization of pre-procedural neuraxial ultrasound compared to conventional methods. We perform a systematic review of randomized controlled trials with meta-analyses. We search the electronic databases Medline, Cochrane Central, Science Direct and Scopus up to 1 June 2019. We include trials comparing a pre-procedural lumbar spine ultrasound to a non-ultrasound-assisted method. The primary endpoints are technical failure rate, first-attempt success rate, number of needle redirections and procedure time. We retrieve 32 trials (3439 patients) comparing pre-procedural lumbar ultrasounds to palpations for neuraxial procedures in various clinical settings. Pre-procedural ultrasounds decrease the overall risk of technical failure (Risk Ratio (RR) 0.69 (99% CI, 0.43 to 1.10), p = 0.04) but not in obese and difficult spinal patients (RR 0.53, p = 0.06) and increase the first-attempt success rate (RR 1.5 (99% CI, 1.22 to 1.86), p < 0.0001, NNT = 5). In difficult spines and obese patients, the RR is 1.84 (99% CI, 1.44 to 2.3; p < 0.0001, NNT = 3). The number of needle redirections is lower with pre-procedural ultrasounds (SMD = −0.55 (99% CI, −0.81 to −0.29), p < 0.0001), as is the case in difficult spines and obese patients (SMD = −0.85 (99% CI, −1.08 to −0.61), p < 0.0001). No differences are observed in procedural times. Ιn conclusion, a pre-procedural ultrasound provides significant benefit in terms of technical failure, number of needle redirections and first attempt-success rate. Τhe effect of pre-procedural ultrasound scanning of the lumbar spine is more significant in a subgroup analysis of difficult spines and obese patients.


2007 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 50-61 ◽  
Author(s):  
David R. Goldhill ◽  
Michael Imhoff ◽  
Barbara McLean ◽  
Carl Waldmann

• Background Immobility is associated with complications involving many body systems. • Objective To review the effect of rotational therapy (use of therapeutic surfaces that turn on their longitudinal axes) on prevention and/or treatment of respiratory complications in critically ill patients. • Methods Published articles evaluating prophylaxis and/or treatment were reviewed. Prospective randomized controlled trials were assessed for quality and included in meta-analyses. • Results A literature search yielded 15 nonrandomized, uncontrolled, or retrospective studies. Twenty prospective randomized controlled trials on rotational therapy were published between 1987 and 2004. Various types of beds were studied, but few details on the rotational parameters were reported. The usual control was manual turning of patients by nurses every 2 hours. One animal investigation and 12 clinical trials addressed the effectiveness of rotational therapy in preventing respiratory complications. Significant benefits were reported in the animal study and 4 of the trials. Significant benefits to patients were reported in 2 of another 4 studies focused on treatment of established complications. Researchers have examined the effects of rotational therapy on mucus transport, intrapulmonary shunt, hemodynamic effects, urine output, and intracranial pressure. Little convincing evidence is available, however, on the most effective rotation parameters (eg, degree, pause time, and amount of time per day). Meta-analysis suggests that rotational therapy decreases the incidence of pneumonia but has no effect on duration of mechanical ventilation, number of days in intensive care, or hospital mortality. • Conclusions Rotational therapy may be useful for preventing and treating respiratory complications in selected critically ill patients receiving mechanical ventilation.


2019 ◽  
Vol 109 (1) ◽  
pp. 29-42 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mads Vendelbo Lind ◽  
Lotte Lauritzen ◽  
Mette Kristensen ◽  
Alastair B Ross ◽  
Jane Nygaard Eriksen

ABSTRACT Background Various mechanisms link higher total homocysteine to higher insulin resistance (IR) and risk of type 2 diabetes (T2D). Folate supplementation is recognized as a way to lower homocysteine. However, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) show inconsistent results on IR and T2D outcomes. Objective The aim of this study was to examine the effect of folate supplementation on IR and T2D outcomes. Design We conducted a systematic literature search in PubMed, Web of Science, and EMBASE and prior systematic reviews and meta-analyses and identified 29 RCTs (22,250 participants) that assessed the effect of placebo-controlled folate supplementation alone or in combination with other B vitamins on fasting glucose, insulin, homeostasis model assessment for insulin resistance (HOMA-IR), glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), or risk of T2D. The meta-analysis was conducted using both random- and fixed-effects models to calculate weighted mean differences (WMDs) or risk ratios with 95% CIs. Subgroup analyses were conducted based on intervention type (folate alone or in combination with other B vitamins), as well as analysis based on population characteristics, duration, dose, and change in homocysteine. Results When compared with placebo, folate supplementation lowered fasting insulin (WMD: −13.47 pmol/L; 95% CI: −21.41, −5.53 pmol/L; P &lt; 0.001) and HOMA-IR (WMD: −0.57 units; 95% CI: −0.76, −0.37 units; P &lt; 0.0001), but no overall effects were observed for fasting glucose or HbA1c. Heterogeneity was low in all meta-analyses, and subgroup analysis showed no signs of effect modification except for change in homocysteine, with the most pronounced effects in trials with a change of &gt;2.5 µmol/L. Changes in homocysteine after folate supplementation correlated with changes in fasting glucose (β = 0.07; 95% CI: 0.01, 0.14; P = 0.025) and HbA1c (β = 0.46; 95% CI: 0.06, 0.85; P = 0.02). Only 2 studies examined folate supplementation on risk of T2D, and they found no change in RR (pooled RR: 0.91; 95% CI: 0.80, 1.04; P = 0.16). Conclusion Folate supplementation might be beneficial for glucose homeostasis and lowering IR, but at present there are insufficient data to conclusively determine the effect on development of T2D. This trial was registered on the Prospero database as CRD42016048254.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document