MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2942622315 · doi:10.1177/0363546519837954

Platelet-Rich Plasma for Patellar Tendinopathy: A Randomized Controlled Trial of Leukocyte-Rich PRP or Leukocyte-Poor PRP Versus Saline

2019· article· en· W2942622315 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Sports Medicine · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTendon Structure and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNorges IdrettshøgskoleUniversity of WashingtonAmerican Orthopaedic Society for Sports MedicineSmith and NephewArthrex
KeywordsPlatelet-rich plasmaSalineMedicineTendinopathyPlateletInternal medicineSurgeryTendon

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: A small number of randomized controlled trials have found ultrasound-guided injection of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) to be no more effective than saline for several tendinopathies; limited information exists for patellar tendinopathy. In addition, different PRP formulations that produce varying concentrations of leukocytes have not been directly compared for patellar tendinopathy. PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS: To determine if a single ultrasound-guided PRP injection, either leukocyte-rich PRP (LR-PRP) or leukocyte-poor PRP (LP-PRP), was superior to saline injection for the treatment of patellar tendinopathy. The null hypothesis was that no treatment would be superior to another for the treatment of patellar tendinopathy. STUDY DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1. METHODS: Athletes with patellar tendinopathy for ≥6 months (Blazina stage IIIB) were assessed for eligibility in a multisite single-blind controlled trial. There were 3 injection arms: LR-PRP, LP-PRP, and saline. Patients received a single ultrasound-guided injection, followed by 6 weeks of supervised rehabilitation (heavy slow resistance training, concentric and eccentric, 3 times per week). Outcome measures-Victorian Institute of Sport Assessment (patellar; VISA-P), pain during activity, and global rating of change-were assessed at 6 and 12 weeks and 6 and 12 months. VISA-P score at 12 weeks was the primary outcome. Fifty-seven patients (19 in each group) were included in an intention-to-treat analysis. Secondary outcome measures included pain during activity and patients' global rating of change. RESULTS: Study retention was 93% at 12 weeks and 79% after 1 year. There was no significant difference in mean change in VISA-P score, pain, or global rating of change among the 3 treatment groups at 12 weeks or any other time point. After 1 year, the mean (SD) outcomes for the LR-PRP, LP-PRP, and saline groups were as follows, respectively: VISA-P-58 (29), 71 (20), and 80 (18); pain-4.0 (2.4), 2.4 (2.3), and 2.0 (1.9); global rating of change-4.7 (1.6), 5.6 (1.0), and 5.7 (1.2) ( P > .05 for all outcomes). CONCLUSION: Combined with an exercise-based rehabilitation program, a single injection of LR-PRP or LP-PRP was no more effective than saline for the improvement of patellar tendinopathy symptoms. REGISTRATION: NCT02116946 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier).

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.900

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.275 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it