Most Orthopaedic Platelet‐Rich Plasma Investigations Don’t Report Protocols and Composition: An Updated Systematic Review
Joseph J. Lim, John W. Belk, Benjamin R. Wharton, Timothy Patrick McCarthy, Eric C. McCarty, Jason L. Dragoo, Rachel M. Frank
Abstract
PURPOSE: To systematically review the literature to assess the heterogeneity of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) preparation and composition reporting for the treatment of musculoskeletal/orthopaedic pathologies. METHODS: A systematic review was performed by searching PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase to identify Level I and Level II studies from 2016 to 2022 that evaluated the use of PRP therapy for musculoskeletal pathologies. The search phrase used was "platelet-rich plasma clinical studies." Studies were assessed based on their reporting of the PRP preparation methods and reporting of PRP composition. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-four studies (in 120 articles) met inclusion criteria for analysis. Of these studies, 15 (12.1%) provided comprehensive reporting, including a clear, well-described, and reproducible preparation protocol that future investigators can follow. Thirty-three studies (26.6%) quantitatively reported the final PRP product composition. CONCLUSIONS: Among the studies using PRP for the treatment of musculoskeletal/orthopaedic pathologies, less than 20% provided a clear, well-described, and reproducible PRP preparation protocol, and only one-fourth of studies reported on the final PRP product composition. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: A diverse current reporting of PRP composition between studies provides a high heterogeneity of the term "PRP," which becomes a limitation for a comparison of studies using PRP.