Castricini 2011.

Methods	Randomised controlled trial: participants followed for at least 16 months. It is not clear if clinical assessors and participants were not blinded to the procedure. MRI assessors were blinded to the procedure Trial conducted: Department of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, Ospedale Civile, Jesi, Italy; recruitment: from January 2007‐April 2008
Participants	Participants: 88 undergoing arthroscopic repair of rotator cuff tears Included participants: participants with repairable small or medium rotator cuff tears (supraspinatus), as assessed in the operative procedure Excluded participants: presence of inflammatory joint disease; irreparable or partial lesions; acromioclavicular arthritis; rotator cuff arthropathy; subscapularis tendon abnormalities; workers' compensation claims; prior surgery on the affected shoulder Age: PRT group mean (range): 55.2 years (37‐69) No PRT mean (range): 55.5 years (41‐72) Gender: PRT group(number of men:women):23:22 No PRT (number of men:women): 17:26 Sports activity: not available
Interventions	All patients underwent arthroscopic repair with double row fixation. PRT was applied as an augmentation procedure PRT (number of participants = 43): single platelet‐rich fibrin matrix ‐ 9 mL blood centrifuged for 6 minutes PRP separated and CaCl2 was added for a 2‐phase centrifugation PRT preparation: kit: Cascade Autologous Platelet System Quantification of platelet concentrates after preparation: not assessed No PRT (number of participants = 45): no platelet‐rich therapy controls Co‐interventions: same rehabilitation protocol
Outcomes	Constant Score MRI (integrity of the rotator cuff repair, retear)
Other quality issues	Sample size: adequate power for Constant Validation of PRT: PRT concentration/validation was not reported
Notes	The authors have provided the study protocol/trial registration details, ID: ISRCTN49643328
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Adequate sequence generation	Low risk	The authors used a random numbers table to allocate study participants
Allocation concealment	Low risk	Used sequentially‐numbered, opaque and sealed envelopes
Blinding All outcomes	Unclear risk	Clinical assessors and participants were probably not blinded to the procedure, but MRI assessors were blinded to the procedure
Incomplete outcome data addressed All outcomes	Low risk	No missing outcome data
Free of selective reporting	Low risk	The study protocol was available and all of the study’s prespecified (primary and secondary) outcomes that are of interest in the review have been reported in the pre‐specified way
Free of other bias	Low risk	The study appears to be free of other sources of bias