Platelet-rich plasma versus corticosteroid injections for rotator cuff tendinopathy: a comparative study with up to 18-month follow-up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Given the complications involved in corticosteroid (CS) injections, subacromial platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections may provide a valid alternative to CS in the treatment of rotator cuff (RC) tendinopathy. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed a total of 98 patients affected by RC tendinopathy who were treated with either subacromial injection of PRP or CS. The PRP group received three injections of autologous PRP at 2 weeks interval, and the CS group received one injection of CS. The Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index (WORC) was the primary outcome measure, while the secondary outcome measures were the visual analog scale (VAS), range of motion (ROM), and need for cuff repair surgery, which were analyzed at intervals of 6, 12, and 18 months. RESULTS: A total of 75 patients were included in the analysis (PRP, n=35; CS, n=40). The mean follow-up for PRP was 21.1±8.7 months and for CS was 33.6±16.3 months (p<0.001). Both groups showed improvement in WORC, VAS, and ROM. No significant differences were detected between the two groups in any of the primary (WORC) or secondary outcomes over 6, 12, and 18 months (all p>0.05). No adverse events were detected. CONCLUSIONS: Both treatments improved patient symptoms, but neither resulted in a significantly better outcome in this series of patients. PRP can be a safe and feasible alternative to CS, even at long-term follow-up, to reduce local and systemic effects involved with CS injections.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".