↓ Skip to main content

Platelet-rich plasma for muscle injuries: game over or time out?

Overview of attention for article published in Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine, February 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#23 of 545)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
56 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
73 Mendeley
Title
Platelet-rich plasma for muscle injuries: game over or time out?
Published in
Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine, February 2015
DOI 10.1007/s12178-015-9259-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael J. Mosca, Scott A. Rodeo

Abstract

Muscle injuries are common and may be associated with impaired functional capacity, especially among athletes. The results of healing with conventional therapy including rest, ice, compression, and elevation (RICE) are often inadequate, generating substantial interest in the potential for emerging technologies such as platelet-rich plasma (PRP) to enhance the process of soft-tissue healing and to decrease time to recovery. In vitro studies and animal research have suggested that PRP may have benefits associated with the increased release of cytokines and growth factors resulting from supraphysiological concentrations of platelets that facilitate muscle repair, regeneration, and remodeling. Despite the promise of basic science, there is a paucity of clinical data to support the theoretical benefits of PRP. The only double-blind controlled clinical trial was recently reported and showed no benefit of PRP in the time to resume sports activity among athletes with hamstring muscle injury. This review examines the current evidence and the theoretical framework for PRP and muscle healing. Scientific gaps and technological barriers are discussed that must be addressed if the potential promise of PRP as a therapeutic modality for muscle injury is to be realized.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 56 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 73 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Ukraine 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 70 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 14%
Student > Master 10 14%
Researcher 9 12%
Other 8 11%
Student > Postgraduate 6 8%
Other 15 21%
Unknown 15 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 36 49%
Sports and Recreations 4 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 2 3%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 21 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 38. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 January 2018.
All research outputs
#1,092,218
of 25,761,363 outputs
Outputs from Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine
#23
of 545 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,279
of 270,994 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine
#2
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,761,363 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 545 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 270,994 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.