Rodeo 2012.

Methods	Randomised controlled trial Trial conducted: Sports Medicine and Shoulder Service, The Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, New York, USA; recruitment: no details available Participants were followed for 24 months
Participants	Participants: 80 undergoing arthroscopic repair of rotator cuff tears Inclusion criteria: participants ≥ 40 years of age for whom non operative treatment had failed Exclusion criteria: people undergoing revision, mini‐open, or open procedures; people with concomitant labral tears. Age: PRT group mean (range): 59.5 years (10.7) No PRT mean (range): 59.5 years (10.7) Gender: PRT group (number of men:women): 23:17 No PRT (number of men:women): 21:18 Sports activity: not available
Interventions	All participants underwent arthroscopic rotator cuff repair with bone anchors PRT (number of participants = 40): single intraoperative application, PRFM, 9 mL blood produced a PRFM product. Fibrin matrix was produced after a second centrifugation step, by the addition of CaCl2 PRT preparation: kit: Cascade Autologous Platelet System, Musculoskeletal Transplant Foundation, Edision, New Jersey, USA) Quantification of platelet concentrates after preparation: not stated No PRT (number of participants = 40): no platelet‐rich therapy controls Quantification of platelet concentrates after preparation: not reported Co‐interventions: same rehabilitation protocol
Outcomes	Ultrasound assessment (tendon healing) ASES Score L' Insalata score Shoulder strength
Other quality issues	Sample size: author stopped trial as it had detected no benefit (target: 65 participants per group) Validation of PRT: the exact composition of the PRP was unknown
Notes	Participants lost to follow‐up: n = 5 (PRT), n = 7 (no PRT) The authors provided the study protocol/trial registration details, ID: NCT01029574
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Adequate sequence generation	Unclear risk	Not reported
Allocation concealment	Low risk	Used sequentially‐numbered, opaque and sealed envelopes
Blinding All outcomes	Low risk	The participants and outcome assessors were blinded to the treatment
Incomplete outcome data addressed All outcomes	High risk	Reasons for missing outcome data were not reported and there was imbalance in numbers across intervention groups
Free of selective reporting	Low risk	The study protocol was available and all of the study’s pre‐specified (primary and secondary) outcomes that are of interest in the review were reported in the pre‐specified way
Free of other bias	Low risk	The study appears to be free of other sources of bias