PloS one · 2021 · 系統性回顧＋統合分析（依標題推測）
Efficacy of Prolotherapy in Comparison to Other Therapies for Chronic Soft Tissue Injuries: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis
注射・再生・儀器治療 · 增生療法
中文閱讀摘要
網路統合分析比較慢性軟組織傷之注射療法，發現Prolotherapy痛感無顯著優於其他療法，但功能優於非注射及類固醇，特定情境下優於安慰劑。
AI 依來源摘要整理，未經人工逐篇核對。閱讀結論前，請回溯研究族群、方法與限制。
原始摘要
Introduction
Prolotherapy and other injections, primarily acting on pathways associated with maladaptive tissue repair, are recommended for recalcitrant chronic soft tissue injuries (CSTI). However, selection of injection is challenging due to mixed results. This network meta-analysis (NMA) aimed to compare prolotherapy with other therapies, particularly injections, for CSTI and establish robustness of the results.
Methodology
Pubmed, Medline, SPORTDiscus and Google scholar were searched from inception to 4th January 2021 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving injection therapies (e.g. blood derivatives, corticosteroid, hyaluronic acid, botulinum toxin) for CSTI. The primary and secondary outcomes were pain and function, respectively, at (or nearest to) 6 months. Effect size (ES) was presented as standardised mean difference with 95% confidence interval (CI). Frequentist random effect NMA was used to generate the overall estimates, subgroup estimates (by region and measurement time point) and sensitivity analyses.
Results
A total of 91 articles (87 RCTs; 5859 participants) involving upper limb (74%), lower limb (23%) and truncal/hip (3%) injuries were included. At all time points, prolotherapy had no statistically significant pain benefits over other therapies. This observation remained unchanged when tested under various assumptions and with exclusion of studies with high risk of bias. Although prolotherapy did not offer statistically significant functional improvement compared to most therapies, its ES was consistently better than non-injections and corticosteroid injection for both outcomes. At selected time points and for selected injuries, prolotherapy demonstrated potentially better pain improvement over placebo (<4 months: shoulder [ES 0.65; 95% CI 0.00 to 1.30]; 4-8 months: elbow [ES 0.91; 95% CI 0.12 to 1.70]; >8 months: shoulder [ES 2.08; 95% CI 1.49, to 2.68]). Injections generally produced greater ES when combined with non-injection therapy.
Conclusion
While clinical outcomes were generally comparable across types of injection therapy, prolotherapy may be used preferentially for selected conditions at selected times.
至 Europe PMC 閱讀完整來源 ↗ · 擷取日期 2026-10-19
書目、來源與全文狀態
- DOI
- 10.1371/journal.pone.0252204
- PMID／PMCID
- 34038486 / PMC8153441
- 作者
- Goh SL, Jaafar Z, Gan YN, Choong A, Kaur J, Kundakci B, Abdul Karim S, Jaffar MR, A Hamid MS
- 首次發表日期
- 2021-05-26Europe PMC 提供，部分日期可能依年份或月份推定。
- 卷／期／頁碼或文章編號
- 16 ／ 5 ／ e0252204
- 書目來源與查核日期
- Europe PMC · 2026-10-19僅核對書目欄位與來源連結；不代表已評讀研究品質。
- 全文與授權
- 來源列有免費全文（查核 2026-10-19），未逐篇測試 PDF 下載。 來源授權標示：cc by。
可回溯引用
Goh SL, Jaafar Z, Gan YN, Choong A, Kaur J, Kundakci B, Abdul Karim S, Jaffar MR, A Hamid MS. Efficacy of Prolotherapy in Comparison to Other Therapies for Chronic Soft Tissue Injuries: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis. PloS one. 2021;16(5):e0252204. PMID: 34038486. PMCID: PMC8153441. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0252204
本站供教育與研究參考。單篇摘要、文體標籤與期刊影響係數不等於證據品質或個別病人的診療建議。