Cited by 92Tendon Structure and TreatmentPeriodontal Regeneration and TreatmentsElbow and Forearm Trauma Treatment

Inefficacy of ultrasound-guided local injections of autologous conditioned plasma for recent epicondylitis: results of a double-blind placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial with one-year follow-up

Montalvan, Bernard, Le Goux, Patrick, Klouche, Shahnaz, Borgel, Delphine, Hardy, Philippe, Breban, Maxime·2016·Rheumatology

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The aim was to assess the efficacy of two intra-tendinous injections of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) on epicondylitis of recent evolution (≤3 months). METHODS: Our study was a double-blind placebo-controlled randomized trial. Two US-guided injections of either PRP (autologous conditioned plasma) or saline solution were performed with an interval of 4 weeks. The exclusion criterion was previous CS infiltration. Patients were monitored by an independent evaluator blinded to treatment at baseline and 1, 3, 6 and 12 months of follow-up. The primary evaluation criterion was the relative improvement from baseline to 6 months in pain score on visual analog scale (0-10). Secondary criteria were the Roles-Maudsley score and the assessment of pain on isometric contraction of extensor carpi radialis brevis and extensor digitorum communis. RESULTS: Twenty-five patients were randomly assigned to each group. Three patients in each arm dropped out before 6 months. In both groups, the pain score [mean (s.d.)] decreased significantly between two consecutive visits from 6.8 (0.8) (PRP) and 7 (1) (saline) at baseline to 2.5 (1.6) and 1.6 (1.5) (PRP) and to 2.1 (1.6) and 1.8 (2.1) (saline) at 6 and 12 months, respectively. At 6 months, no statistically significant difference was found between groups for relative improvement in pain score [autologous conditioned plasma: -63.2 (22.4%); saline: -69.7 (25.1%); P = 0.24]. No significant difference was found for the secondary criteria. CONCLUSION: Two US-guided PRP injections for epicondylitis of recent evolution were not more efficacious than saline injections, until 6- and 12-months follow-up. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov; https://clinicaltrials.gov/; NCT02378285.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/rheumatology/kev326

Cites

Statistics

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

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?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Montalvan, B., Le Goux, P., Klouche, S., Borgel, D., Hardy, P., & Breban, M.
Affiliations
  • Assistance Publique – Hôpitaux de Paris (FR)
  • Université de Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines (FR)
Venue
Rheumatology
Published
2015-09-08
Volume
55
Issue
2
Pages
279-285
ISSN
  • 1462-0324 (ISSN-L)
  • 1462-0332
OpenAlex
W1702877984
Cited by
92
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 3 · 2014: 1
FWCI
7.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Lara D. Veeken (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Tendon Structure and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Urology › Periodontal Regeneration and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Elbow and Forearm Trauma Treatment
Keywords
platelet-rich plasma, autologous conditioned plasma, epicondylitis, ultrasound-guided injection, saline injection, analgesia, extensor carpi radialis brevis, extensor digitorum communis, treatment efficacy
MeSH terms
Double-Blind Method, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Injections, Male, Middle Aged, Retrospective Studies, Tennis Elbow, Time Factors, Treatment Outcome, Ultrasonography, Interventional, 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