MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3161411817 · doi:10.1186/s13018-021-02470-x

Corticosteroids or platelet-rich plasma injections for rotator cuff tendinopathy: a randomized clinical trial study

2021· article· en· W3161411817 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Haleh Dadgostar, Farinaz Fahimipour, Alireza Pahlevan Sabagh, Peyman Arasteh, Mohammad Razi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicShoulder Injury and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePlatelet-rich plasmaRotator cuffTendinopathyCorticosteroidRange of motionRandomized controlled trialTendonSurgeryTendinitisOrthopedic surgeryLidocaineRotator cuff injuryInternal medicineUrologyPlatelet

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Studies evaluating the role of both corticosteroids and platelet-rich plasma (PRP) in the treatment of rotator cuff (RC) tendinopathies have been contradicting. We compared structural and clinical changes in RC muscles after corticosteroids and PRP injections. METHODS: This is a randomized double-blind clinical trial. All individuals with diagnosis of RC tendinitis during 2014-2017 were considered. Individuals were randomly allocated to either receive PRP or corticosteroids. Overall, 3cc of PRP was injected within the subacromial joint and another 3cc was injected at the site of the tendon tear, under the guide of sonography. For the corticosteroid group, 1cc of Depo-medrol 40mg and 1cc of lidocaine (2%) was injected within the subacromial joint. RESULTS: Overall, 58 patients entered the study. Comparison of pain, range of motion (ROM), Western Ontario RC (WORC), Disability of Arm-Hand-Shoulder (DASH) scores, and supraspinatus thickness showed significant improvement during follow-ups in both groups (p<0.05). During 3 months of follow-up, pain improvement was significantly better within the PRP group during (from 6.66±2.26 to 3.08±2.14 and 5.53±1.80 to 3.88±1.99, respectively; p=0.023). Regarding ROM, the PRP group had significant improvement in adduction (20.50°±8.23° to 28°±3.61° and 23.21°±7.09° to 28.46°±4.18° for the PRP and corticosteroid groups, respectively; p=0.011) and external rotation (59.66°±23.81° to 76.66°±18.30° and 57.14°±24.69° to 65.57°±26.39°, for the PRP and corticosteroid groups, respectively; p=0.036) compared to the corticosteroid group. CONCLUSION: We found that PRP renders similar results to that of corticosteroids in most clinical aspects among patients with RC tendinopathies; however, pain and ROM may show more significant improvement with the use of PRP. Considering that the use of corticosteroids may be contraindicated in some patients and may be associated with the risk of tendon rupture, we suggest the use of PRP in place of corticosteroid-based injections among patients with RC tendinopathy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical trial registration code: IRCT201302174251N9.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
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 score0.093
Threshold uncertainty score0.988

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.204
GPT teacher head0.475
Teacher spread0.271 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations64
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Orthopaedic Surgery and ResearchSame topicShoulder Injury and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207