Skip to main content
. 2021 Nov 19;25(1):73–89. doi: 10.5397/cise.2021.00353

Table 4.

Subgroup analysis of personal and study-related factors affecting medium-term (6–7 months) pain relief with PRP vs. control interventions

Comparison No. of groups MD (95% CI) p-value
Shoulder pathology <0.05
 Rotator cuff lesions 9 0.90 (0.31 to 1.49)
 Adhesive capsulitis 1 1.84 (1.33 to 2.35)
No. of injections <0.05
 1 5 0.75 (0.41 to 1.10)
 >1 5 1.23 (0.27 to 2.20)
PRP-leucocyte concentration <0.05
 LR-PRP 2 0.75 (0.01 to 1.49)
 LP-PRP 4 1.06 (–0.15 to 2.28)
PRP platelet concentration <0.05
 ≥5× 4 1.03 (0.37 to 1.69)
 <5× 4 0.52 (0.19 to 0.86)
Platelet separation technique <0.05
 Single centrifugation 3 0.48 (0.11 to 0.84)
 Double centrifugation 7 1.19 (0.50 to 1.87)
Platelet activating agent <0.05
 Used 4 1.03 (0.37 to 1.69)
 Not used 3 0.48 (0.11 to 0.84)
Injection volume <0.05
 ≤3 mL/injection 3 0.94 (–0.13 to 2.01)
 >3mL/injection 7 1.03 (0.30 to 1.75)

Analysis was done after exclusion of study by Wongworawat (unpublished trial), Wesner et al.’s study (total sample was very less; total 7) [11], and one group of Cai et al.’s study (where PRP was compared with combination of PRP and hyaluronic acid) [15].

PRP: platelet rich plasma, MD: mean difference, LR: leucocyte rich, LP: leucocytes poor.