↓ Skip to main content

Platelet-rich plasma versus autologous blood versus steroid injection in lateral epicondylitis: systematic review and network meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#6 of 223)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
7 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
126 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
215 Mendeley
Title
Platelet-rich plasma versus autologous blood versus steroid injection in lateral epicondylitis: systematic review and network meta-analysis
Published in
Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, September 2015
DOI 10.1007/s10195-015-0376-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alisara Arirachakaran, Amnat Sukthuayat, Thaworn Sisayanarane, Sorawut Laoratanavoraphong, Wichan Kanchanatawan, Jatupon Kongtharvonskul

Abstract

Clinical outcomes between the use of platelet-rich plasma (PRP), autologous blood (AB) and corticosteroid (CS) injection in lateral epicondylitis are still controversial. A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was conducted with the aim of comparing relevant clinical outcomes between the use of PRP, AB and CS injection. Medline and Scopus databases were searched from inception to January 2015. A network meta-analysis was performed by applying weight regression for continuous outcomes and a mixed-effect Poisson regression for dichotomous outcomes. Ten of 374 identified studies were eligible. When compared to CS, AB injection showed significantly improved effects with unstandardized mean differences (UMD) in pain visual analog scale (VAS), Disabilities of Arm Shoulder and Hand (DASH), Patient-Related Tennis Elbow Evaluation (PRTEE) score and pressure pain threshold (PPT) of -2.5 (95 % confidence interval, -3.5, -1.5), -25.5 (-33.8, -17.2), -5.3 (-9.1, -1.6) and 9.9 (5.6, 14.2), respectively. PRP injections also showed significantly improved VAS and DASH scores when compared with CS. PRP showed significantly better VAS with UMD when compared to AB injection. AB injection has a higher risk of adverse effects, with a relative risk of 1.78 (1.00, 3.17), when compared to CS. The network meta-analysis suggested no statistically significant difference in multiple active treatment comparisons of VAS, DASH and PRTEE when comparing PRP and AB injections. However, AB injection had improved DASH score and PPT when compared with PRP injection. In terms of adverse effects, AB injection had a higher risk than PRP injection. This network meta-analysis provided additional information that PRP injection can improve pain and lower the risk of complications, whereas AB injection can improve pain, disabilities scores and pressure pain threshold but has a higher risk of complications. Level I evidence.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 215 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 215 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 30 14%
Student > Master 26 12%
Other 25 12%
Student > Bachelor 20 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 6%
Other 37 17%
Unknown 65 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 96 45%
Nursing and Health Professions 22 10%
Sports and Recreations 7 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 1%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 1%
Other 12 6%
Unknown 72 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 February 2023.
All research outputs
#1,492,896
of 24,230,934 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology
#6
of 223 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,690
of 272,318 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology
#2
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,230,934 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 223 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 272,318 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.