Discouraging data from the first rigorous study of platelet-rich plasma therapy

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American


The results of the first randomized controlled trial looking at the effectiveness of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) are out, and they fail to support the therapy sought by many amateur and professional athletes alike, including Tiger Woods. An injection of PRP was no better than a saline injection in alleviating pain and aiding recovery among a group of Achilles tendonitis sufferers, according to the study published January 13 in the JAMAThe Journal of the American Medical Association.

The field of PRP therapy has been in need of this type of rigorous trial in which the therapy was compared to a placebo treatment, Dennis Cardone, a doctor of osteopathic medicine at the New York University Hospital for Joint Diseases, told ScientificAmerican.com on December 17. Without these trials, doctors cannot know about the potential effectiveness of PRP, or whether just sticking a needle in an injured site could spur some recovery. Still, Cardone offers platelet injections to patients with diverse injuries who have failed conventional therapies because he says that, in some cases, it does seem to help.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


In the current study, researchers treated 54 patients who had suffered from Achilles pain for at least two months. Subjects received an injection of either PRP or saline solution (a placebo). At six, 12 and 24 weeks after the injections, patients in both groups experienced some recovery. The group that received PRP did not, however, report significantly improved pain and activity levels compared with the placebo group.

Johannes Tol, an orthopedic researcher at the Hague Medical Center in the Netherlands and lead author of the study, says that this negative result does not write off platelet injections altogether because the therapy could have different effects on different injuries, The New York Times reported.

Indeed, studies are currently under way to assess the effectiveness of PRP for treating knee and rotator cuff tendon injuries and plantar fasciitis (inflammation of tissue at the bottom of the foots), according to the newspaper.

The results of clinical trials coming out this year could make or break PRP therapy, says Cardone, who is part of a group studying PRP for rotator cuff damage. For certain types of injuries, these studies could inform doctors how to get the best results from PRP.

Image courtesy of iStockphoto/LionHector

Carina Storrs is a freelance writer in New York City. The Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting provided travel support for this story, which originally appeared in Nature.

More by Carina Storrs

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe