Platelet-rich plasma treatment improves outcomes for chronic proximal hamstring injuries in an athletic population

Dear Editor,

it was with great interest that we read the article by Fader et al.1: “Platelet-rich plasma treatment improves outcomes for chronic proximal hamstring injuries in an athletic population”, which appeared on Muscle, Ligaments and Tendons Journal 4(4) 2014, and we commend with the authors for their effort into the research for new treatments for patients with proximal hamstring tendinopathy. However, as stated by the Authors in the introduction section (page 462): “A recently published study by Cacchio et al. described shockwave therapy ... This study, though promising, is limited by a short-term follow-up of only 3 months”. In fact, our RCT study2 included a follow-up to 12 months. I would like to invite the Authors to be more careful in their statements, but also the Reviewers in verifying its accuracy.

Moreover I would like the Reviewer to accurately verify the methodological quality of the manuscripts who review. In this manuscript by Fader et al.1 there is a lack of scientific methodology. There is a lack of data: i) final data of the VAS scale (there is only a statistical increase for some patients); ii) initial and final data of the mentioned “questionnaire”; iii) complete absence of patients’ clinical data. Moreover, there is a complete absence of statistical analysis. Although this is a preliminary work, some basic scientific procedures should be respected. So that, the conclusive statements of the Authors on the therapeutic procedure that their used in his study, are absolutely speculative, and not supported by data and their scientific analysis.