45 results
Filters
Sort By
Results Per Page
Filters
45 results
Download the following citations:
Email the following citations:
Print the following citations:
  • Cleveland B
  • Norling B
  • Wang H
  • Gandhi V
  • Price CL
  • et al.
BJU Int. 2024 Mar;133(3):259-272 doi: 10.1111/bju.16244.
OBJECTIVE:

To assess the effects of tranexamic acid (TXA) in individuals with kidney stones undergoing percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL).

PATIENTS AND METHODS:

We performed a literature search of Cochrane Library, PubMed (including MEDLINE), Embase, Scopus, Global Index Medicus, trials registries, grey literature, and conference proceedings. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared treatment with PCNL with administration of TXA to placebo (or no TXA) for patients aged ≥18 years. Two review authors independently classified studies and abstracted data. Primary outcomes were blood transfusion, stone-free rate (SFR), thromboembolic events (TEE). We rated the certainty of evidence (CoE) according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach using a minimally contextualised approach with pre-defined thresholds for minimally clinically important differences (MCID).

RESULTS:

We included 10 RCTs assessing the effect of systemic TXA in PCNL vs placebo (or no TXA). Eight studies were published as full text. Based on an adjusted baseline risk of blood transfusion of 5.7%, systemic TXA may reduce blood transfusions (risk ratio [RR] 0.45, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.27-0.76). Based on an adjusted baseline SFR of 75.7%, systemic TXA may increase SFR (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.98-1.27). There is probably no difference in TEEs (risk difference 0.001, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.01). Systemic TXA may increase adverse events (AEs) (RR 5.22, 95% CI 0.52-52.72). Systemic TXA may have little to no effect on secondary interventions (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.84-1.57). The CoE for most outcomes was assessed as low or very low.

CONCLUSIONS:

Based on a body of evidence of 10 RCTs, we found that systemic TXA in PCNL may reduce blood transfusions, major surgical complications, and hospital length of stay, as well as improve the SFR; however, it may increase AEs. These findings should inform urologists and their patients in making informed decisions about the use of TXA in the setting of PCNL.

  • Xu Y
  • Li T
  • Wang L
  • Yao L
  • Li J
  • et al.
Am J Sports Med. 2024 Feb 15;3635465231213087 doi: 10.1177/03635465231213087.
BACKGROUND:

Corticosteroids (CS) have shown good short-term performance in terms of pain relief and functional improvement. However, the safety and long-term efficacy of this treatment remains controversial. Several studies have reported good results of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) in the treatment of tendinopathies. However, whether its use in the treatment of lateral epicondylitis (LE) is superior to that of CS remains controversial.

PURPOSE:

To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of original studies to determine whether the prognosis of LE patients treated with PRP is better than that of CS.

STUDY DESIGN:

Meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 2.

METHODS:

Two independent reviewers searched online databases from January 2000 to July 2022 according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines to evaluate prospective studies of PRP versus CS injection for LE. A third author addressed any discrepancies. Evidence quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Risk ratios for dichotomous variables and mean differences (MDs) for continuous variables were used to compare clinical outcomes. P values <.05 were considered statistically significant.

RESULTS:

Eleven randomized controlled trials with 730 patients were included in this review. PRP provided a significantly worse short-term (<2 months) improvement in the visual analog scale (VAS) pain score (MD, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.42 to 1.44]; I2 = 85%; P = .0003) and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score (MD, 10.23 [95% CI, 9.08 to 11.39]; I2 = 67%; P < .0001) but better long-term (≥6 months) improvement in the VAS score (MD, -2.18 [95% CI, -3.13 to -1.22]; I2 = 89%; P < .0001), DASH score (MD, -8.13 [95% CI, -9.87 to -6.39]; I2 = 25%; P < .0001), and Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MD, 16.53 [95% CI, 1.52 to 31.53]; I2 = 98%; P = .03) than CS. The medium-term (2-6 months) reduction in the VAS score was not significantly different between the 2 groups. After sensitivity analysis, none of the results changed except for the short-term VAS scores (MD, 0.53 [95% CI, -0.13 to 1.19]; I2 = 78%; P = .12).

CONCLUSION:

Both PRP and CS injections are effective treatments for patients with LE. CS provides better short-term (<2 months) functional improvement and may be more advantageous in terms of short-term pain relief, while PRP provides better long-term (≥6 months) functional improvement and better performance regarding long-term pain relief.

  • Wang S
  • Yang J
  • Lin L
  • Wang, S.
  • Yang, J.
  • et al.
Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2024 Feb;48(3):543-558 doi: 10.1007/s00266-023-03637-z.
BACKGROUND:

Tranexamic acid (TXA) is a versatile antifibrinolytic agent that is widely used in modern surgeries. This review assessed the safety and efficacy of intravenous (IV) TXA in plastic surgery versus controls.

METHODS:

This review selected English-language Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating IV TXA effects in plastic surgery from four electronic databases, PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library up to April 9, 2023. Primary outcomes were blood loss volume (BLV) and transfusion occurrence, with operation time and surgical field assessment as secondary outcomes. IV TXA-related complications were also important indicators. Meta-analyses and qualitative analyses were conducted and the quality of the evidence was assessed.

RESULTS:

Thirty RCTs with 2150 patients were included. The total standard mean difference (SMD) of BLV and pooled relative risk of transfusion occurrence between the IV TXA and the control groups were - 1.11 (95% CI, - 1.42 to - 0.80) and 0.36 (95% CI, 0.23 to 0.55) respectively, indicating a significant blood loss reduction with IV TXA treatment, while an ambiguous outcome of operation time was observed, with an SMD of - 0.22 (95% CI, - 0.42 to - 0.02). The quality of evidence for BLV and transfusion occurrence was low and medium, respectively. A quantitative analysis of surgical field assessment was not performed because of the substantial heterogeneity in scoring methods. No IV TXA-related complications were observed.

CONCLUSIONS:

In plastic surgery, IV TXA administration results in less blood loss, reduced need for transfusion and better surgical fields but probably does not increase the risk of adverse events.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE I:

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine Ratings, please refer to Table of Contents or online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

  • Zhong C
  • Chen J
  • Yan Z
  • Xia R
  • Zeng W
  • et al.
Transpl Immunol. 2023 Dec;81:101953 doi: 10.1016/j.trim.2023.101953.
BACKGROUND:

The selection of antiviral therapy for BK polyomavirus (BKPyV) infection has been extensively debated. Our study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of various treatments for BKPyV infection.

METHODS:

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases for relevant studies regarding drug treatments for BKPyV viremia/DNAemia published between January 1, 1970 and September 30, 2022. Two independent authors screened the published studies, extracted pertinent data, and evaluated their methodological quality. A meta-analysis was performed using the RevMan software version 4.2.2.

RESULTS:

A total of 33 published studies involving 986 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, therapeutic interventions comprised immunosuppression reduction alone or in combination with leflunomide, intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG), cidofovir, or mTOR inhibitor (mTORi) therapy. The meta-analysis revealed that the efficacy of immunosuppression reduction alone for serum BKPyV clearance was 68% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.58-0.77; I2 = 78%). Moreover, the efficacy of immunosuppression reduction in combination with leflunomide, cidofovir, IVIG, or mTORi therapy for serum BKPyV clearance was 61% (95% CI: 0.47-0.74; I2 = 83%), 71% (95% CI: 0.63-0.78; I2 = 0), 87% (95% CI: 0.82-0.93; I2 = 45%), and 80% (95% CI: 0.59-1.00; I2 = 58%), respectively. Compared to immunosuppression reduction alone, immunosuppression reduction combined with IVIG therapy offered a statistically significant benefit in serum BKPyV clearance (P < 0.01) with minimal adverse reactions, whereas other adjunctive drug treatments did not demonstrate considerable effects.

CONCLUSIONS:

Reducing immunosuppression remains the primary approach for treating BKPyV infection. Although the combination treatment with IVIG proved to be most effective, other agents might offer varied antiviral advantages of high heterogeneity, which should be substantiated in future long-term randomized controlled trials.

Editor's Choice
  • Cleveland B
  • Norling B
  • Wang H
  • Gandhi V
  • Price CL
  • et al.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023 Oct 26;10(10):CD015122 doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD015122.pub2.
POPULATION:

Patients with kidney stones undergoing percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), (10 randomised controlled trials (RCTs), n= 1,883).

INTERVENTION:

Tranexamic acid.

COMPARISON:

Placebo or no tranexamic acid.

OUTCOME:

The primary outcomes were: blood transfusion, stone-free rate, and thromboembolic events. Based on 10 RCTs with substantial methodological limitations that lowered all certainty of evidence of effect, the authors found that systemic tranexamic acid in PCNL may reduce blood transfusions, major and minor surgical complications, and hospital length of stay, as well as improve stone-free rates; however, it may increase adverse events. The authors were uncertain about the effects of systemic TXA on other outcomes.

BACKGROUND:

Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is the gold standard for the treatment of large kidney stones but comes with an increased risk of bleeding compared to other treatments, such as ureteroscopy and shock wave lithotripsy. Tranexamic acid (TXA) is an antifibrinolytic agent that has been used to reduce bleeding complications in other settings.

OBJECTIVES:

To assess the effects of TXA in individuals with kidney stones undergoing PCNL.

SEARCH METHODS:

We performed a comprehensive literature search of the Cochrane Library, PubMed (including MEDLINE), Embase, Scopus, Global Index Medicus, trials registries, other sources of the grey literature, and conference proceedings. We applied no restrictions on the language of publication nor publication status. The latest search date was 11 May 2023.

SELECTION CRITERIA:

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared treatment with PCNL with administration of TXA to placebo (or no TXA) for patients ≥ 18 years old.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:

Two review authors independently classified studies and abstracted data. Primary outcomes were: blood transfusion, stone-free rate (SFR), and thromboembolic events (TEEs). Secondary outcomes were: adverse events (AEs), secondary interventions, major surgical complications, minor surgical complications, unplanned hospitalizations or readmissions, and hospital length of stay (LOS). We performed statistical analyzes using a random-effects model. We rated the certainty of evidence (CoE) according to the GRADE approach using a minimally contextualized approach with predefined thresholds for minimally clinically important differences (MCIDs).

MAIN RESULTS:

We analyzed 10 RCTs assessing the effect of systemic TXA in PCNL versus placebo (or no TXA) with 1883 randomized participants. Eight studies were published as full text. One was published in abstract proceedings, but it was separated into two separate studies for the purpose of our analyzes. Average stone surface area ranged 3.45 to 6.62 cm2. We also found a single RCT published in full text assessing the effects of topical TXA in PCNL versus placebo (or no TXA) with 400 randomized participants, the results of which are further described in the review. Here we focus only on the results of TXA used systemically. Blood transfusion - Based on a representative baseline risk of 5.7% for blood transfusions taken from a large presentative observational studies, systemic TXA may reduce blood transfusions (risk ratio (RR) 0.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.27 to 0.76; I2 = 28%; 9 studies, 1353 participants; low CoE). We assumed an MCID of ≥ 2%. Based on 57 participants per 1000 with placebo (or no TXA) being transfused, this corresponds to 31 fewer (from 42 fewer to 14 fewer) participants being transfused per 1000. Stone-free rate - Based on a representative baseline risk of 75.7% for SFR, systemic TXA may increase SFRs (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.27; I2 = 62%; 4 studies, 603 participants; low CoE). We assumed an MCID of ≥ 5%. Based on 757 participants per 1000 being stone free with placebo (or no TXA), this corresponds to 83 more (from 15 fewer to 204 more) stone-free participants per 1000. Thromboembolic events - There is probably no difference in TEEs (risk difference (RD) 0.00, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.01; I2 = 0%; 6 studies, 841 participants; moderate CoE). We assumed an MCID of ≥ 2%. Since there were no thromboembolic events in intervention and/or control groups in 5 out of6 studies, we opted to assess a risk difference with systemic TXA for this outcome. Adverse events - Systemic TXA may increase AEs (RR 5.22, 95% CI 0.52 to 52.72; I2 = 75%; 4 studies, 602 participants; low CoE). We assumed an MCID of ≥ 5%. Based on 23 participants per 1000 with placebo (or no TXA) having an adverse event, this corresponds to 98 more (from 11 fewer to 1000 more) participants with adverse events per 1000. Secondary interventions - Systemic TXA may have little to no effect on secondary interventions (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.57; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 319 participants; low CoE). We assumed an MCID of ≥ 5%. Based on 278 participants per 1000 with placebo (or no TXA) having a secondary intervention, this corresponds to 42 more (from 44 fewer to 158 more) participants with secondary interventions per 1000. Major surgical complications - Based on a representative baseline risk for major surgical complications of 4.1%, systemic TXA may reduce major surgical complications (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.62; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 733 participants; moderate CoE). We assumed an MCID of ≥ 2%. Based on 41 participants per 1000 with placebo (or no TXA) having a major surgical complication, this corresponds to 26 fewer (from 32 fewer to 16 fewer) participants with major surgical complications per 1000. Minor surgical complications - Systemic TXA may reduce minor surgical complications (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.10; I2 = 76%; 5 studies, 733 participants; low CoE). We assumed an MCID of ≥ 5%. Based on 396 participants per 1000 with placebo (or no TXA) having a minor surgical complication, this corresponds to 115 fewer (from 218 fewer to 40 more) participants with minor surgical complications per 1000. Unplanned hospitalizations or readmissions - We are very uncertain how unplanned hospitalizations or readmissions are affected (RR 1.55, 95% CI 0.45 to 5.31; I2 = not applicable; 1 study, 189 participants; very low CoE). We assumed an MCID of ≥ 2%. Hospital length of stay - Systemic TXA may reduce hospital LOS (mean difference 0.52 days lower, 95% CI 0.93 lower to 0.11 lower; I2 = 98%; 7 studies, 1151 participants; low CoE). We assumed an MCID of ≥ 0.5 days.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:

Based on 10 RCTs with substantial methodological limitations that lowered all CoE of effect, we found that systemic TXA in PCNL may reduce blood transfusions, major and minor surgical complications, and hospital LOS, as well as improve SFRs; however, it may increase AEs. We are uncertain about the effects of systemic TXA on other outcomes. Findings of this review should assist urologists and their patients in making informed decisions about the use of TXA in the setting of PCNL.

  • Zhang T
  • Wang G
  • Fang G
  • Qiu L
  • Lu F
  • et al.
Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2023 Aug 18;408(1):322 doi: 10.1007/s00423-023-03058-1.
PURPOSE:

Anastomotic leakage (AL) is a common postoperative complication of rectal cancer, with an incidence of about 10%, and the efficacy of reinforced sutures for preventing AL remains contentious. This study investigated the safety and effectiveness of reinforcement sutures for preventing AL after rectal cancer surgery.

METHODS:

The present authors conducted a systematic search in the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Sinomed, Web of Science, Wanfang, VIP, and CNKI databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized studies up to June 2023. We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of anastomotic reinforcement sutures after rectal cancer surgery. The primary outcome measures were AL, anastomotic bleeding, and infection rates.

RESULTS:

Eleven articles (1921 subjects) were analyzed, with 912 and 1009 cases in the reinforced and unreinforced suture groups, respectively. The reinforced suture group showed a lower AL incidence (odds ratio [OR]=0.25, 95% CI 0.17-0.37, P< 0.00001), lower infection rate (OR=0.41, 95%CI 0.19-0.89, P<0.05), shorter hospital stay (mean difference [MD]=-0.57, 95%CI -1.15-0.00, P≤0.05), and earlier anal exhaust (MD=-0.12, 95%CI -0.23-0.00, P<0.05). However, the operative time (MD=18.25, 95% CI 12.20-24.30, P<0.00001) was longer for reinforced sutures than for unreinforced sutures. There were no significant differences between the suture techniques in intraoperative blood loss MD=2.74, 95% CI -4.50-9.97, P>0.05), incidence of anastomotic bleeding (OR=0.49, 95%CI 0.12-1.97, P>0.05), and incidence of intestinal obstruction (OR=0.65, 95%CI 0.27-1.61, P>0.05).

CONCLUSION:

Existing articles indicate that anastomotic reinforcement sutures can significantly reduce AL incidence. However, this conclusion still requires confirmation based on multicentre, high-quality RCTs with large sample sizes.

  • Wang S
  • Yang J
  • Lin L
Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2023 Aug;47(4):1633-1643 doi: 10.1007/s00266-023-03281-7.
BACKGROUND:

According to recent evidence, the use of local tranexamic acid (TXA) during plastic surgery may lessen blood loss.

OBJECTIVES:

To comprehensively assess the use of local TXA during plastic surgery through a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials addressing these issues.

METHODS:

Four electronic databases, including PubMed, Web of Science, Embase and the Cochrane Library, were searched until December 12, 2022. Following meta-analyses, the mean difference (MD) or standardized mean difference (SMD) for blood loss volume (BLV), ΔHct, ΔHb and operation time were calculated when appropriate.

RESULTS:

Eleven randomized controlled trials were included in the qualitative synthesis, while 8 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Compared with the control group, the local TXA group showed a reduction in blood loss volume of -1.05 (p < 0.00001; 95% CI, -1.72 to -0.38). However, local TXA had a limited effect on reducing ΔHct, ΔHb and operation time. A meta-analysis was not performed because of heterogeneity in other outcomes; however, except for 1 study in which no significant difference was observed on POD 1, all studies showed significantly lower rates of postoperative ecchymosis after surgery, 2 studies showed statistically significant reductions in transfusion risk or volume, and 3 studies reported significantly better surgical field quality in operations with local TXA. In the 2 included studies, the researchers concluded that local treatment does not play a role in relieving postoperative pain.

CONCLUSIONS:

Local TXA is associated with less blood loss, less ecchymosis and better surgical field in plastic surgery patients.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE I:

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

  • Zhang L
  • Zhao XY
  • Guo SY
  • Jiang J
  • Wang G
  • et al.
Int Wound J. 2023 Aug;20(6):1979-1986 doi: 10.1111/iwj.14059.

Sepsis is a potentially lethal condition that occurs when the body's response to infection damages tissue and organs. The production of inflammatory mediators typically assists in defending the body against infection; however, an overreaction to inflammation can cause coagulation problems, vascular endothelial damage, and organ hypoperfusion. Blood purification methods, such as plasmapheresis, can effectively remove inflammatory mediators from plasma. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to explore the efficacy of plasma exchange for sepsis treatment as noted in recent studies. The authors searched the Pubmed (Medline), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library), Embase (Ovid), and Scopus databases and included controlled clinical studies that compared plasmapheresis or plasma filtration with conventional treatment in patients with severe sepsis. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale literature quality assessment tool was used to assess the risk of bias. The primary study outcome was all-cause mortality. The random effects model was adopted for conducting the meta-analysis. Among the 1013 records found, the study included 5 trials, all of which carried a low risk of bias. The use of plasmapheresis was associated with a longer stay in the intensive care unit (odds ratio [OR], 0.85, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.39-1.32, heterogeneity [I2 ] = 0%), a significant reduction in all-cause mortality (OR, 0.54, 95% CI, 0.33-0.89, I2  = 70%), and reduced mortality (OR, 0.29, 95% CI, 0.13-0.67, I2  = 0%) in adults; the results for children differed from this (OR, 0.79, 95% CI, 0.36-1.72, I2  = 89%). Four trials reported no adverse events; one trial reported an adverse event related to plasma exchange, including an instance of hypotension in one patient. Plasmapheresis appeared to be an effective treatment for patients suffering from sepsis. A large number of additional randomised controlled trials are needed to confirm this finding.

  • Zhang XH
  • He JH
  • Zhang XS
  • Zhang J
  • Wang CJ
  • et al.
Front Neurol. 2023 Jun 2;14:1169440 doi: 10.3389/fneur.2023.1169440.
OBJECTIVE:

The optimal treatment approach for hemorrhagic moyamoya disease (HMMD) remains a topic of debate, particularly regarding the comparative efficacy of revascularization versus conservative treatment. Our study, which included a single-center case series and a systematic review with meta-analysis, aimed to determine whether surgical revascularization is associated with a significant reduction in postoperative rebleeding, ischemic events, and mortality compared to conservative treatment among East Asian HMMD patients.

METHODS:

We conducted a systematic literature review by searching PubMed, Google Scholar, Wanfang Med Online (WMO), and the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI). The outcomes of surgical revascularization and conservative treatment, including rebleeding, ischemic events and mortality, were compared. The authors' institutional series of 24 patients were also included and reviewed in the analysis.

RESULTS:

A total of 19 East Asian studies involving 1,571 patients as well as our institution's retrospective study of 24 patients were included in the study. In the adult patients-only studies, those who underwent revascularization had significantly lower rates of rebleeding, ischemic events, and mortality compared to those who received conservative treatment (13.1% (46/352) vs. 32.4% (82/253), P < 0.00001; 4.0% (5/124) vs. 14.9% (18/121), P = 0.007; and 3.3% (5/153) vs. 12.6% (12/95), P = 0.01, respectively). In the adult/pediatric patients' studies, similar statistical results of rebleeding, ischemic events, and mortality have been obtained (70/588 (11.9%) vs. 103/402 (25.6%), P = 0.003 or <0.0001 in a random or fixed-effects model, respectively; 14/296 (4.7%) vs. 26/183 (14.2%), P = 0.001; and 4.6% (15/328) vs. 18.7% (23/123), P = 0.0001, respectively).

CONCLUSION:

The current single-center case series and systematic review with meta-analysis of studies demonstrated that surgical revascularization, including direct, indirect, and a combination of both, significantly reduces rebleeding, ischemic events, and mortality in HMMD patients in the East Asia region. More well-designed studies are warranted to further confirm these findings.

  • Peng Y
  • Li F
  • Ding Y
  • Sun X
  • Wang G
  • et al.
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2023 Jun;32(6):1303-1313 doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2023.01.037.
HYPOTHESIS:

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and corticosteroids are used to treat rotator cuff diseases. However, few reviews have compared the effects of these 2 treatments. In this study, we compared the effects of PRP and corticosteroid injection on the prognosis of rotator cuff diseases.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

According to the Cochrane Manual of Systematic Review of Interventions, the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched comprehensively. Two independent authors screened suitable studies and performed data extraction and risk of bias assessment. Only randomized controlled trials comparing the effects of PRP and corticosteroid in the treatment of rotator cuff injuries were included, as measured by clinical function and pain during different follow-up periods.

RESULTS:

Nine studies with 469 patients were included in this review. In short-term treatment, corticosteroids were superior to PRP in the improvement of Constant, Simple Shoulder Test, and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores (mean difference [MD] -5.08, 95% confidence interval [CI] -10.26, 0.06; P = .05 and MD -0.97, 95% CI -1.68, -0.07; P = .03 and MD -6.67, 95% CI -12.85, -0.49; P = .03, respectively). No statistically significant difference was observed between the 2 groups at midterm (P > .05), and the recovery of the Simple Shoulder Test and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores in PRP treatment was significantly better than that in corticosteroid treatment in the long term (MD: 1.21, 95% CI: 0.68, 1.74; P < .00001 and MD: 6.96, 95% CI: 3.90, 9.61; P < .00001, respectively). In pain reduction based on visual analog scale score, corticosteroids led to better pain reduction (MD: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.03, 1.64; P = .04), but no significant difference was observed in pain reduction between the 2 groups in the any term (P > .05). However, these differences did not reach the minimum clinically important difference.

CONCLUSIONS:

Current analysis showed that corticosteroids have better efficacy in short term, whereas PRP is more beneficial for long-term recovery. However, no difference was observed in the mid-term efficacy between the 2 groups. Randomized controlled trials with longer follow-up periods and larger sample sizes are also needed to determine the optimal treatment.