Level A· Stronger Clinical EvidenceMeta-analysisEurope PMCOpen access

Effect of Platelet-Rich Plasma Injection on the Treatment of Achilles Tendinopathy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Ling SK., Mak CT., Lo JP., Yung PS.

Meta-analysis with a reported sample of 422 on Tendon Injury, published in Orthop J Sports Med (2024) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level A· Stronger Clinical EvidenceEvidence level of this study

Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.

  • Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
  • Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
  • Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
  • Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
  • Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
Read the A–D evidence level guide

This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.

Study type
Meta-analysis
Journal
Orthop J Sports Med (2024)
Reported sample size
422
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
39611122
PMCID
PMC11603511
DOI
10.1177/23259671241296508
Citations
2

Abstract (original English)

Background Achilles tendinopathy is a common condition without a reproducible and timely treatment modality. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injection has been proposed as an enticing treatment option, but there is no consensus regarding its effectiveness. Purpose To pool the available data and evaluate the evidence of the effect of PRP injections on Achilles tendinopathy. Study design Systematic review; Level of evidence, 1. Methods This review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. CINAHL via EBSCOhost, Cochrane Library, and PubMed databases were searched for randomized controlled trials comparing PRP injection with nonoperative treatment, with the Victorian Institute of Sport Assessment-Achilles (VISA-A) questionnaire score or maximal Achilles tendon (AT) thickness on ultrasound as outcome measures. Risk-of-bias assessment was performed of the included studies, and meta-analyses compared differences in outcome measures between PRP injection and control at the short-term (3-month), intermediate-term (6-month), and long-term (12-month) follow-ups. Results Of 409 publications, 6 publications (N = 422 patients with chronic midportion Achilles tendinopathy) were identified from the literature search. Risk-of-bias assessment revealed 2 studies were low risk, 1 was of some concern, and 3 were high risk

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.

Evidence level

Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.

How we grade evidence

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.

Related research