Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 294

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 54 of the 54 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Efficacy of Autologous Platelet-Rich Plasma Use for Orthopaedic Indications: A Meta-Analysis

Sheth, Ujash, Simunovic, Nicole, Klein, Guy, Fu, Freddie, Einhorn, Thomas A., Schemitsch, Emil, Ayeni, Olufemi R., Bhandari, Mohit·2012·Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The recent emergence of autologous blood concentrates, such as platelet-rich plasma, as a treatment option for patients with orthopaedic injuries has led to an extensive debate about their clinical benefit. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the efficacy of autologous blood concentrates in decreasing pain and improving healing and function in patients with orthopaedic bone and soft-tissue injuries. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE and Embase for randomized controlled trials or prospective cohort studies that compared autologous blood concentrates with a control therapy in patients with an orthopaedic injury. We identified additional studies by searching through the bibliographies of eligible studies as well as the archives of orthopaedic conferences and meetings. RESULTS: Twenty-three randomized trials and ten prospective cohort studies were identified. There was a lack of consistency in outcome measures across all studies. In six randomized controlled trials (n = 358) and three prospective cohort studies (n = 88), the authors reported visual analog scale (VAS) scores when comparing platelet-rich plasma with a control therapy across injuries to the acromion, rotator cuff, lateral humeral epicondyle, anterior cruciate ligament, patella, tibia, and spine. The use of platelet-rich plasma provided no significant benefit up to (and including) twenty-four months across the randomized trials (standardized mean difference, -0.34; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.75 to 0.06) or the prospective cohort studies (standardized mean difference, -0.20; 95% CI, -0.64 to 0.23). Both point estimates suggested a small trend favoring platelet-rich plasma, but the associated wide confidence intervals were consistent with nonsignificant effects. CONCLUSIONS: The current literature is complicated by a lack of standardization of study protocols, platelet-separation techniques, and outcome measures. As a result, there is uncertainty about the evidence to support the increasing clinical use of platelet-rich plasma and autologous blood concentrates as a treatment modality for orthopaedic bone and soft-tissue injuries.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2106/jbjs.k.00154

Cites

54 of 54 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 54 references

Cited by

See all 294

Metadata

Authors
Sheth, U., Simunovic, N., Klein, G., Fu, F., Einhorn, T. A., Schemitsch, E., Ayeni, O. R., & Bhandari, M.
Venue
Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery
Published
2012-02-15
Volume
94
Issue
4
Pages
298-307
ISSN
  • 0021-9355 (ISSN-L)
  • 1535-1386
OpenAlex
W2128827515
Cited by
294
References
54
FWCI
8.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Efficacy of Autologous Platelet-Rich Plasma Use for Orthopaedic Indications: A Meta-Analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2106/jbjs.k.00154
The paper
Sheth, U., Simunovic, N., Klein, G., Fu, F., Einhorn, T. A., Schemitsch, E., Ayeni, O. R., & Bhandari, M. (2012). Efficacy of Autologous Platelet-Rich Plasma Use for Orthopaedic Indications: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. https://doi.org/10.2106/jbjs.k.00154

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.