ABSTRACT
Platelet-rich plasma is derived from centrifuging whole blood. There is increasing interest in the sports medicine and athlete community about providing endogenous growth factors directly to the injury site, using autologous blood products such as platelet-rich plasma. The aim of the present study is to evaluate the association between research financing, conflict of interests, level of evidence and author affiliation with the interpretation of results in articles published on platelet-rich plasma therapy in musculoskeletal ailments. A review of the current literature was performed. The outcome was classified as favorable or unfavorable. The declaration of conflict of interests and the type of funding was extracted from each article. The financing was classified as industry-sponsored; not industry-sponsored; or unidentifiable. The level of evidence was categorized from I to IV. Higher positive outcomes were observed in 134 studies with industry sponsorship compared with not industry-sponsored studies (odds ratio [OR]: 0.26; 95% confidence interval [95%CI]: 0.08-0.85; p < 0.05). Compared with level of evidence I, levels II and IV increase the probability of positive outcomes by 12.42 times ( p < 0.01) and 10.97 times ( p < 0.01) respectively. Proportionally, industry-sponsored studies are more likely to present positive results, as well as articles with a lower quality of evidence.
ABSTRACT
Abstract Platelet-rich plasma is derived from centrifuging whole blood. There is increasing interest in the sports medicine and athlete community about providing endogenous growth factors directly to the injury site, using autologous blood products such as platelet-rich plasma. The aim of the present study is to evaluate the association between research financing, conflict of interests, level of evidence and author affiliation with the interpretation of results in articles published on platelet-rich plasma therapy in musculoskeletal ailments. A review of the current literature was performed. The outcome was classified as favorable or unfavorable. The declaration of conflict of interests and the type of funding was extracted from each article. The financing was classified as industry-sponsored; not industry-sponsored; or unidentifiable. The level of evidence was categorized from I to IV. Higher positive outcomes were observed in 134 studies with industry sponsorship compared with not industry-sponsored studies (odds ratio [OR]: 0.26; 95% confidence interval [95%CI]: 0.08-0.85; p < 0.05). Compared with level of evidence I, levels II and IV increase the probability of positive outcomes by 12.42 times (p < 0.01) and 10.97 times (p < 0.01) respectively. Proportionally, industry-sponsored studies are more likely to present positive results, as well as articles with a lower quality of evidence.
Resumo O plasma rico em plaquetas é derivado da centrifugação do sangue total. Há um interesse crescente, na medicina esportiva e na comunidade atlética, no fornecimento de fatores de crescimento endógeno diretamente ao sítio da lesão, usando componentes sanguíneos autólogos, como o plasma rico em plaquetas. O objetivo deste estudo é avaliar a associação entre financiamento de pesquisa, conflito de interesses, nível de evidência e afiliação dos autores com a interpretação dos resultados em publicações sobre terapia com plasma rico em plaquetas nas doenças osteomusculares. Foi realizada uma revisão da literatura atual. O desfecho foi classificado como favorável ou desfavorável. A declaração de conflito de interesses e o tipo de financiamento foram extraídos de cada artigo. O financiamento foi qualificado em patrocínio industrial; não patrocinado pela indústria; ou não identificável. O nível de evidência foi categorizado de I a IV. Foram obtidos os resultados positivos mais altos com 134 estudos financiados pelo setor industrial, em comparação com estudos não financiados pela indústria (razão de probabilidades [RP]: 0,26; intervalo de confiança de 95% [95%IC]: 0,08-0,85; p < 0,05). Em comparação com o nível de evidência I, os níveis II e IV aumentam a probabilidade de resultado positivo em 12,42 vezes (p < 0,01) e 10,97 vezes (p < 0,01), respectivamente. Demonstrou-se que, proporcionalmente, estudos patrocinados pela indústria têm maior probabilidade de apresentar resultados positivos, bem como artigos com menor qualidade de evidência.
