Cited by 49Periodontal Regeneration and TreatmentsTendon Structure and TreatmentMusculoskeletal Disorders and Rehabilitation

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Experts Achieve Consensus on a Majority of Statements Regarding Platelet‐Rich Plasma Treatments for Treatment of Musculoskeletal Pathology

Abstract

Purpose: To establish consensus statements on platelet‐rich plasma (PRP) for the treatment of musculoskeletal pathologies. Methods: A consensus process on the treatment of PRP using a modified Delphi technique was conducted. Thirty‐five orthopaedic surgeons and sports medicine physicians participated in these consensus statements on PRP. The participants were composed of representatives of the Biologic Association, representing 9 international orthopaedic and musculoskeletal professional societies invited due to their active interest in the study of orthobiologics. Consensus was defined as achieving 80% to 89% agreement, strong consensus was defined as 90% to 99% agreement, and unanimous consensus was indicated by 100% agreement with a proposed statement. Results: There was consensus on 62% of statements about PRP. Conclusions: (1) PRP should be classified based on platelet count, leukocyte count, red blood count, activation method, and pure‐plasma versus fibrin matrix; (2) PRP characteristics for reporting in research studies are platelet count, leukocyte count, neutrophil count, red blood cell count, total volume, the volume of injection, delivery method, and the number of injections; (3) the prognostic factors for those undergoing PRP injections are age, body mass index, severity/grade of pathology, chronicity of pathology, prior injections and response, primary diagnosis (primary vs postsurgery vs post‐trauma vs psoriatic), comorbidities, and smoking; (4) regarding age and body mass index, there is no minimum or maximum, but clinical judgment should be used at extremes of either; (5) the ideal dose of PRP is undetermined; and (6) the minimal volume required is unclear and may depend on the pathology. Level of Evidence: Level V, expert opinion.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.arthro.2023.08.020

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 39

  1. 10.1177/23259671211015667 · DOI
  2. 10.5435/JAAOS-D-18-00305 · DOI
  3. 10.1016/j.tibtech.2008.11.009 · DOI
  4. 10.1302/0301-620X.101B8.BJJ-2019-0037.R1 · DOI
  5. 10.1371/journal.pone.0067303 · DOI
  6. 10.1016/j.arthro.2012.10.025 · DOI
  7. 10.1016/j.arthro.2018.10.125 · DOI
  8. 10.3928/01477447-20151120-04 · DOI
  9. 10.2106/JBJS.16.01374 · DOI · Paper page
  10. 10.1016/j.jse.2020.08.011 · DOI
  11. 10.1177/1071100718779395 · DOI
  12. 10.1016/j.arthro.2019.10.026 · DOI
  13. 10.1016/j.arthro.2019.08.014 · DOI
  14. 10.1016/j.arthro.2018.10.004 · DOI
  15. 10.1016/j.arthro.2015.04.093 · DOI
  16. 10.1016/j.jse.2019.10.024 · DOI
  17. 10.1016/j.jse.2019.04.034 · DOI
  18. 10.1016/j.arthro.2021.07.022 · DOI
  19. 10.1016/j.arthro.2021.07.023 · DOI
  20. 10.1016/j.arthro.2021.07.019 · DOI
  21. 10.1177/0363546515608481 · DOI
  22. 10.1177/0363546519827947 · DOI
  23. 10.2106/JBJS.16.00793 · DOI
  24. 10.1016/j.arthro.2013.03.004 · DOI
  25. 10.1177/0363546519837954 · DOI
  26. 10.1177/0363546515580787 · DOI
  27. 10.1016/j.arthro.2018.10.115 · DOI
  28. 10.1177/23259671211010510 · DOI
  29. 10.1177/03635465211062243 · DOI
  30. 10.2106/JBJS.20.02258 · DOI
  31. 10.1038/s41598-021-83025-2 · DOI
  32. 10.1007/s00167-014-2987-4 · DOI
  33. 10.1016/j.knee.2021.08.008 · DOI
  34. 10.1055/s-0038-1669953 · DOI
  35. 10.1016/j.arthro.2015.12.018 · DOI
  36. 10.1177/0363546517751397 · DOI · Paper page
  37. 10.1016/j.arthro.2020.02.004 · DOI
  38. 10.2106/JBJS.19.01446 · DOI
  39. 10.1016/j.arthro.2017.11.022 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Hurley, E. T., Sherman, S. L., Stokes, D. J., Rodeo, S. A., Shapiro, S. A., Mautner, K., Buford, D. A., Dragoo, J. L., Mandelbaum, B. R., Zaslav, K. R., Cole, B. J., Frank, R. M., & Members of the Biologics Association
Affiliations
  • Duke University (US)
  • Stanford Medicine (US)
  • University of Colorado Anschutz (US)
  • Hospital for Special Surgery (US)
  • Mayo Clinic in Florida (US)
  • Emory University (US)
  • Texas Orthobiologics Dallas Texas U.S.A.
  • Cedars-Sinai Kerlan-Jobe Institute (US)
  • Northwell Health (US)
  • Rush University Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
Hurley, Eoghan T.
Venue
Arthroscopy
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2023-08-23
Volume
40
Issue
2
Pages
470
ISSN
  • 0749-8063 (ISSN-L)
  • 1526-3231
OpenAlex
W4386102371
Cited by
49
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 1
FWCI
15.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Arthroscopy The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (23K24460)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Dentistry › Periodontics › Periodontal Regeneration and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Tendon Structure and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Musculoskeletal Disorders and Rehabilitation
Keywords
platelet-rich plasma, musculoskeletal disorders, orthobiologics, fibrin matrix, prognostic factors, patient selection, PRP injection
MeSH terms
Humans, Injections, Leukocyte Count, Platelet-Rich Plasma

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review