Platelet rich plasma versus corticosteroids for lateral epicondylitis: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Ralph Maroun; Mohammad Daher; Peter Boufadel; Ryan Lopez; Adam Z Khan; Joseph A. Abboud

doi:10.5397/cise.2024.00801

Search: Clin Shoulder Elb Search

CLOSE

Clin Shoulder Elb > Volume 28(1); 2025 > Article

Maroun, Daher, Boufadel, Lopez, Khan, and Abboud: Platelet rich plasma versus corticosteroids for lateral epicondylitis: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Original Article

Clinics in Shoulder and Elbow 2025; 28(1): 40-48.

Published online: February 10, 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5397/cise.2024.00801

Platelet rich plasma versus corticosteroids for lateral epicondylitis: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Ralph Maroun¹

, Mohammad Daher¹

, Peter Boufadel¹

, Ryan Lopez¹

, Adam Z Khan², Joseph A. Abboud¹

¹Division of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, Rothman Orthopaedic Institute, Thomas Jefferson Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA

²Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Southern California Permanente Medical Group, Panorama City, CA, USA

Corresponding Author: Joseph A. Abboud Division of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, Rothman Orthopedic Institute, 925 Chestnut St, Philadelphia, PA 19107, USA
Tel: +1-610-547-8351, E-mail: abboudj@gmail.com

Received: October 3, 2024 Revised: October 24, 2024 Accepted: October 29, 2024

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Background

Lateral epicondylitis, colloquially known as tennis elbow, is a common cause of elbow pain and daily task disability. Caused by repetitive movement, it is typically a degenerative rather than inflammatory event and affects mostly middle-aged patients. Despite its good prognostic nature, its economic burden on the healthcare system encourages research on the efficacity of non-operative injection treatments. This article aims to compare the clinical effectiveness of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and corticosteroid (CS) injections in managing lateral epicondylitis.

Methods

PubMed, Cochrane, and Google Scholar (pages 1–20) were searched up to March 2024. Only randomized controlled trials were included. The clinical outcomes evaluated were the visual analog scale (VAS) and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) score.

Results

Twenty-six randomized controlled trials with 1.877 patients were included in this meta-analysis. In terms of VAS scores, short-term results (<2 months) favored CS over PRP (P=0.03; mean difference [MD], 0.67; 95% CI, 0.05 to 1.28), whereas long-term results (>6 months) favored PRP (P<0.001; MD, –1.60; 95% CI, –2.01 to –1.20]). Intermediate-term results (2–6 months) showed no significant difference between injection treatments. In terms of DASH scores, short- and intermediate-term results showed no significant difference, whereas long-term results favored PRP (P<0.001; MD, –4.87; 95% CI, –7.69 to –2.06).

Conclusions

CS provides significantly better short-term pain relief, while PRP provides better long-term functional improvement and clinical long-term pain relief. However, future studies should focus on other injection protocols or addition of other non-invasive modalities.

Level of evidence

Key Words: Lateral epicondylitis; Platelet rich plasma; Corticosteroids; Tennis elbow; Conservative management

INTRODUCTION

Lateral epicondylitis (LE) is most commonly referred to as tennis elbow, although only 10% of the affected population are tennis players [1]. Generally, LE is considered the number one cause of symptoms related to elbow pain. This entity is frequently seen in orthopedic clinics with 1% to 3% of men and women being annually affected [1-3]. Initially, inflammation was thought to be the driving factor of tennis elbow, but histologically, the absence of the inflammatory cells [1,4] has classified tennis elbow as a degenerative process of the tendon. The most commonly affected tendon is the extensor carpi radialis brevis [3,5,6] which, due to its unique anatomical position, is exposed to stressful forces in every movement of the arm. In fact, the strongest risk factor of LE was shown to be repetitive or highly vigorous work, thus a depiction of occupational or athletic activities [1,6-10]. This debilitating disease causes lateral elbow pain with increasing weakness in grip strength, and any additional stress on an extended wrist is painful [7,11]. In addition to disturbing the patients’ daily life activities, tennis elbow adds a huge economic burden on the United States health care system. The mean reimbursement per patient per year has steadily risen [3] in the United States every year [2].

Different treatment modalities exist for LE, from nonoperative front-line treatments divided between non-invasive and invasive procedures such as injections [12-15], to operative treatment used as a last resort. Injection therapy, specifically corticosteroid (CS) and platelet-rich plasma (PRP), remain the most common management modality. Meta-analyses aimed to resolve this controversy by comparing the clinical efficacy of the injection types during the last 5 years [16-21]. However, many of these meta-analyses had flaws such as inclusion of a study by Varshney et al. [22] that analyzed 20 patients with medial epicondylitis (ME) or analyzing different scores together without considering the standardized mean difference (SMD). Therefore, our study was deemed important because it includes the most recent literature analyzed to date to compare the clinical effectiveness of CS and PRP injections in LE treatment.

METHODS

Search Strategy

This study was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. PubMed, Cochrane, and Google Scholar (pages 1–20) were searched up to March of 2024, to compare the clinical effectiveness of PRP and steroids in the treatment of LE. Boolean operators were used with the following keywords: “PRP,” “plasma,” “predni,” “steroids,” “triamcinolone,” “epicondylitis,” and “elbow.” To enhance our literature search, reference lists from papers and online searches were also scanned for possible relevant studies. Initial title and abstract screening were performed for all articles, followed by a full-text review by two authors (RM, MD). Conflicts were discussed and resolved by consensus. Data extraction was performed by one author. The PRISMA flowchart (Fig. 1) provides a summary of the search strategy.

To be included, studies had to be randomized controlled trials comparing patients with LE managed with PRP to others managed with steroids and achieving the outcomes of interest. Studies with the following characteristics were excluded from this study: non-randomized controlled studies, missing outcomes, or (3) including both patients with medial or LE [22].

Data Extraction

The data extracted from the included studies consisted of clinical outcomes of visual analog scale (VAS) for pain score and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) score.

Risk of Bias Assessment

The risk of bias assessment was performed independently by two authors. To grade eligible studies, the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool was used. For each trial, six risk-of-bias categories were assessed and scored: random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants and personnel to the study protocol, blinding to outcome assessment, incomplete outcome data, and selective reporting. Scores used were high, low, or unclear risk (Fig. 2A). Trials were labeled as high risk of bias if >1 key domain was scored as high. When all key domains were scored as low, the trial was labeled as low risk of bias. Other trials not meeting either of these criteria had an unclear risk of bias.

Statistical Analysis

The statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.4 (The Cochrane Collaboration, 2020). The studied outcomes were compared using mean differences (MD) and 95% CIs. Q tests and I² statistics were used to evaluate heterogeneity. If P≤0.05 or I² >50%, showing considerable heterogeneity, the random-effects model was adopted. Otherwise, the fixed-effect model was chosen. Statistical significance is shown by P<0.05. In addition, based on previous studies, short-term follow-up was defined as <2 months, intermediate follow-up as between 2 and 6 months, and long-term follow-up as >6 months [16,18].

RESULTS

Characteristics of the Included Studies

Twenty-six randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria and were included in this meta-analysis [23-48]. In total, 1,877 patients were included, with 943 in the PRP group and 934 in the steroid group. The main characteristics of the included studies are summarized in Table 1. The results of the bias assessment are summarized in Fig. 2B.

Visual Analog Scale

Twenty randomized controlled trials on 1,540 subjects (774 PRP and 766 steroids) reported data on VAS at less than 2 months, 18 randomized controlled trials on 1,370 subjects (689 PRP and 681 steroids) reported data on VAS between 2 and 6 months, and 15 randomized controlled trials on 1,143 subjects (574 PRP and 569 steroids) reported data on VAS at more than 6 months. A random-effects model was used for all three of these analyses due to I² >50%. At less than 2 months, PRP had significantly higher VAS scores (P=0.03; MD, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.05–1.28) (Fig. 3A). Between 2 and 6 months after the injection, there was no significant difference in VAS score between PRP and steroids (P=0.09; MD, –0.38; 95% CI, –0.81 to 0.05) (Fig. 3B). At more than 6 months, PRP had significantly lower VAS scores than steroids (P<0.001; MD, –1.60; 95% CI, –2.01 to –1.20) (Fig. 3C).

DASH Score

Twelve randomized controlled trials on 858 subjects (433 PRP and 425 steroids) reported data on DASH at less than 2 months, 10 randomized controlled trials on 738 subjects (373 PRP and 365 steroids) reported data on DASH between 2 and 6 months, and 9 randomized controlled trials on 611 subjects (308 PRP and 303 steroids) reported data on DASH at more than 6 months. A random-effects model was used for all three of these analyses due to the I² >50%. At less than 2 months and between 2 and 6 months, there was no significant difference in DASH score between PRP and steroids (P=0.36; MD, 2.39; 95% CI, –2.69 to 7.47 [Fig. 4A] and P=0.10; MD, –3.24; 95% CI, –7.06 to 0.59 [Fig. 4B], respectively). At more than 6 months, PRP had significantly lower (better) DASH scores than steroids (P<0.001; MD, –4.87; 95% CI, –7.69 to –2.06) (Fig. 4C).

DISCUSSION

LE, in addition to hindering daily life activities, is also a significant healthcare financial burden [3]. Therefore, study of its most used treatments is of importance. The basis of this study was performed to include newly published randomized control trials in a meta-analysis. This study used a three-time-point system to minimize heterogeneity from different follow-up times in the original studies. Therefore, our study had the highest number of included studies and addressed shortcomings of previous published works. Our study answered previously posed questions regarding the superiority of one treatment over the other in terms of pain relief or functional improvement. Our findings avoided the limitation of Varshney et al [22], who included patients with ME, which affects different muscles from those in LE. This difference in ME can impact muscle functions and pain measures not observed in LE [49]. Other meta-analyses [17,50] included a study by Lebiedziński et al. [51] that compared autologous conditioned plasma (ACS] to CSs, which do not contain the same cytokines, causing a high risk of sampling bias. The most recent meta-analysis [16] mixed outcomes (DASH and QuickDASH), measured using multiple scales, and did not consider using SMD for the analysis. Furthermore, they analyzed pain outcomes measured through Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation (PRTEE) mixed with those measured through VAS and did not adjust the DASH outcome of Peerbooms et al. [26], based on a 0–200 scale, to match the other results based on a 0–100 scale.

In terms of short-term (<2 months) pain relief, our analysis showed significantly better performance of CS injections. However, the change of pain scores did not exceed the published minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of 1.5 [52], and this result not significant clinically. Though intermediate-term (2–6 months] effects were not significantly different, the long term (>6 months) outcomes were statistically and clinically significantly better with PRP. A recent meta-analysis by Xu et al. [16] showed similar results. Another study by Hohmann et al. [17] reported similar results for short- and long-term pain relief but observed a significant difference in favor of PRP at the intermediate term. This discrepancy could be the result of a smaller number of analyzed trials and inclusion of the limited study by Varshney et al. [22].

The possibility of simultaneous use of PRP and steroid injections should be considered, with the latter being solely administered for short-term pain relief. However, these two injections may have counteracting effects and should be compared in further study. In terms of functional improvement, our study showed no significant difference in DASH scores in the short and intermediate term. Though there was significant difference in favor of PRP in the long term, it was not clinically significant as it did not exceed the published MCID of 15.8 [53]. Our short-term and long-term results seem to be in accordance with almost all published studies, but Xu et al. [16] showed a discrepancy in the short-term, favoring the use of CS. This can be explained by the lower number of included studies, in addition to their other mentioned analysis-related flaws. DASH and VAS results highlight the prolonged PRP effect that can be explained by the ability of PRP to reduce inflammatory receptors and increase anti-inflammatory ones, theoretically healing tissue over time [54,55]. The present study showed a long-term but not clinically significant functional improvement along with clinically significant long-term pain relief with PRP.

Meta-analyses by Xu et al. [21], Li et al. [19], and Huang et al. [18] showed similar results, although a precise comparison could not be performed due to heterogeneous data collection intervals. In addition, the Mayo performance index was analyzed in two of those meta-analyses, a measure that can produce possible bias and proximate conclusions stemming from very limited data. Additionally, our results are based on the latest recorded scores for each follow-up interval, which was not the case in Huang et al. [18], who used all recorded data within the analyzed interval. This study is not void of limitations and suffers those of the included studies, which may have resulted in heterogeneity. The analyzed trials had non-standardized PRP preparation protocols and different dosages of PRP or CS injections. In addition, inclusion and exclusion criteria varied by study, and the data used for analysis were pooled, limiting comprehensive analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis and systematic review showed that CS provides significantly better short-term (<2 months) pain relief than PRP, although the difference was however this did not reach MCID for pain. PRP provides a clinically insignificant but a statistically better long-term (>6 months) functional improvement and both a clinically and statistically significant long-term pain relief.

NOTES

Author contributions

Writing – original draft: RM, MD, PB, RL, AZK. Writing – review & editing: JAA. All authors read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Conflict of interest

AZK would like to disclose research support from Stryker and DePuy and was a paid presenter or speaker at Enovis. JAA would like to disclose royalties from Osteocentric Technologies, Enovis, Zimmer-Biomet, Stryker, and Globus Medical, Inc. and ownership of stocks in Shoulder Jam, Aevumed, Oberd, OTS MEDICAL, ORTHOBULLETS, ATREON, and RESTORE 3D. Research support as a PI was received from ENOVIS and ARTHREX, and royalties or financial or material support was from Wolters Kluwer, Slack Orthopaedics, and Elsevier. Board member/committee appointments have been held for the American Shoulder and Elbow Society, Mid Atlantic Shoulder AND Elbow Society, Shoulder 360, Pacira.

Funding

None.

Data availability

Contact the corresponding author for data availability.

Acknowledgments

None.

Fig. 1.

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flowchart for article selection.

Fig. 2.

(A) Risk of bias items for each included trial. (B) Risk of bias items presented as percentages across all included trials.

Fig. 3.

Forest plots showing visual analog scale ((VAS) score between platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and steroids (A) at <2 months, (B) at 2–6 months, and (C) at >6 months. SD: standard deviation, IV: inverse variance.

Fig. 4.

Forest plots showing the difference in Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) score between platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and steroids (A) at <2 months, (B) at 2–6 months, and (C) at >6 months. SD: standard deviation, IV: inverse variance.

Table 1.

Characteristics of the included studies

Study	Participant		Age (yr)		Sex (M:F)		Follow-up (mo)
Study	PRP	CS	PRP	CS	PRP	CS	PRP	CS
Bashir et al. (2020) [33]	24	24	38.8	37	4:20	8:16	0.25:2:6
Bin Saeed et al. (2018) [39]	19	19	47	43	13:6	11:8	1.5:3
Chowdry et al. (2017) [28]	30	30	38.1	40.1	10:20	20:10	0.5:1.5:3:6
Das et al. (2019) [24]	90	86	39.1	39.8	40:50	41:45	0.5:1.5:3
Gautam et al. (2015) [32]	15	15	NA	NA	NA		0.5:1.5:3:6
Gosens et al. (2011) [35]	51	49	46.8	47.3	23:28	23:26	1:2:3:6:12:24
Güngör et al. (2021) [42]	24	24	43.9	40.9	8:16	9:15	8
Gupta et al. (2019) [27]	40	40	42.4	39.4	22:21	12:25	1.5:3:12
Jain P et al. (2020) [45]	49	48	45.3	44.8	23:26	14:34	6
Japatti et al. (2020) [37]	20	20	40.9	40.9	15:25		1:2:3:6
Kamble et al. (2023) [30]	32	32	40	40	29:35		0.5:1:3:6:12:24
Kaur et al. (2023) [40]	46	46	41.2	39.7	16:30	19:27	0.33:1:3:6
Khan et al. (2016) [48]	50	50	39.4	43	10:40	20:30	0.5:1:1.5:2
Khaliq et al. (2015) [23]	51	51	33.6	34.2	45:57		0.75
Wardak et al. (2018) [25]	50	50	31.5	31.5	8:42	12:38	0.5:1.5:3:6
Nasser et al. (2017) [34]	15	15	40.9	41.7	4:11	7:8	3
Omar et al. (2012) [41]	15	15	40.5	37.5	6:9	5:10	1.5
Palacio et al. (2016) [44]	20	20	46.6	46.2	NA		3:6
Peerbooms et al. (2010) [26]	51	49	46.9	47.3	23:26	25:26	1:2:3:6:12
Sadiq et al. (2023) [46]	81	81	48.1	47.4	44:37	46:35	1.5:3:6
Sandhu et al. (2020) [29]	25	25	44.2	42.6	27:23		0.75:1.5:4:8
Sayadi et al. (2023) [36]	15	15	47.7	50.3	3:12	4:11	1
Seetharamaiah et al. (2017) [47]	30	30	52	50	24:36		3:6
Tasneem et al. (2019) [38]	40	40	42.6	45.8	45:35		3
Varudu et al. (2021) [43]	30	30	42.5	42.5	25:35		1:2:6
Yadav et al. (2015) [31]	30	30	36.6	36.7	10:20	7:23	0.5:1:3

PRP: platelet-rich plasma, CS: corticosteroid, NA: not applicable.

REFERENCES

1. Buchanan BK, Varacallo M. Lateral epicondylitis (tennis elbow) [Internet]. StatPearls Publishing; 2024 [cited 2024 Dec 1]. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28613744/.

2. Hanson ZC, Stults WP, Lourie GM. Failed surgical treatment for lateral epicondylitis: literature review and treatment considerations for successful outcomes. JSES Rev Rep Tech 2023;4:33–40.

3. Degen RM, Conti MS, Camp CL, Altchek DW, Dines JS, Werner BC. Epidemiology and disease burden of lateral epicondylitis in the USA: analysis of 85,318 patients. HSS J 2018;14:9–14.

4. Vaquero-Picado A, Barco R, Antuña SA. Lateral epicondylitis of the elbow. EFORT Open Rev 2017;1:391–7.

5. Faro F, Wolf JM. Lateral epicondylitis: review and current concepts. J Hand Surg Am 2007;32:1271–9.

6. Keijsers R, de Vos RJ, Kuijer PP, van den Bekerom MP, van der Woude HJ, Eygendaal D. Tennis elbow. Shoulder Elbow 2019;11:384–92.

7. Tosti R, Jennings J, Sewards JM. Lateral epicondylitis of the elbow. Am J Med 2013;126:357.

8. Shiri R, Viikari-Juntura E. Lateral and medial epicondylitis: role of occupational factors. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 2011;25:43–57.

9. Haahr JP, Andersen JH. Physical and psychosocial risk factors for lateral epicondylitis: a population based case-referent study. Occup Environ Med 2003;60:322–9.

10. Cutts S, Gangoo S, Modi N, Pasapula C. Tennis elbow: a clinical review article. J Orthop 2019;17:203–7.

11. Ma KL, Wang HQ. Management of lateral epicondylitis: a narrative literature review. Pain Res Manag 2020;2020:6965381.

12. Chesterton LS, Mallen CD, Hay EM. Management of tennis elbow. Open Access J Sports Med 2011;2:53–9.

13. Bateman M, Titchener AG, Clark DI, Tambe AA. Management of tennis elbow: a survey of UK clinical practice. Shoulder Elbow 2019;11:233–8.

14. Bonczar M, Ostrowski P, Plutecki D, et al. Treatment options for tennis elbow: an umbrella review. Folia Med Cracov 2023;63:31–58.

15. Pathan AF, Sharath HV. A review of physiotherapy techniques used in the treatment of tennis elbow. Cureus 2023;15:e47706

16. Xu Y, Li T, Wang L, Yao L, Li J, Tang X. Platelet-rich plasma has better results for long-term functional improvement and pain relief for lateral epicondylitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Am J Sports Med 2024;52:2646–56.

17. Hohmann E, Tetsworth K, Glatt V. Corticosteroid injections for the treatment of lateral epicondylitis are superior to platelet-rich plasma at 1 month but platelet-rich plasma is more effective at 6 months: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of level 1 and 2 studies. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2023;32:1770–83.

18. Huang K, Giddins G, Wu LD. Platelet-rich plasma versus corticosteroid injections in the management of elbow epicondylitis and plantar fasciitis: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Sports Med 2020;48:2572–85.

19. Li A, Wang H, Yu Z, et al. Platelet-rich plasma vs corticosteroids for elbow epicondylitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore) 2019;98:e18358

20. Tang S, Wang X, Wu P, et al. Platelet-rich plasma vs autologous blood vs corticosteroid injections in the treatment of lateral epicondylitis: a systematic review, pairwise and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. PM R 2020;12:397–409.

21. Xu Q, Chen J, Cheng L. Comparison of platelet rich plasma and corticosteroids in the management of lateral epicondylitis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Int J Surg 2019;67:37–46.

22. Varshney A, Maheshwari R, Juyal A, Agrawal A, Hayer P. Autologous platelet-rich plasma versus corticosteroid in the management of elbow epicondylitis: a randomized study. Int J Appl Basic Med Res 2017;7:125–8.

23. Khaliq A, Khan I, Inam M, Saeed M, Khan H, Iqbal MJ. Effectiveness of platelets rich plasma versus corticosteroids in lateral epicondylitis. J Pak Med Assoc 2015;65(11 Suppl 3):S100–4.

24. Das PP, Mazumder G. Randomized controlled trial of intra-lesional injection of platelet rich plasma V/S intra-lesional triamcinolone acetonide in the management of lateral epicondylitis. IOSR J Dent Med Sci 2019;18:77–85.

25. Wardak GM, Hasni MT. Comparative analysis of management of tennis elbow with plasma rich protein and triamcinolone injection. Pak J Surg 2018;34:246–9.

26. Peerbooms JC, Sluimer J, Bruijn DJ, Gosens T. Positive effect of an autologous platelet concentrate in lateral epicondylitis in a double-blind randomized controlled trial: platelet-rich plasma versus corticosteroid injection with a 1-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med 2010;38:255–62.

27. Gupta PK, Acharya A, Khanna V, Roy S, Khillan K, Sambandam SN. PRP versus steroids in a deadlock for efficacy: long-term stability versus short-term intensity-results from a randomised trial. Musculoskelet Surg 2020;104:285–94.

28. Chowdry M, Gopinath KM, Kumar BN, Kanmani TR. Comparative study of efficacy between platelet-rich plasma vs corticosteroid injection in the treatment of lateral epicondylitis. J Med Sci 2017;3:1–5.

29. Sandhu KS, Kahal KS, Singh J, Singh J, Grewal H. A comparative study of activated platelet rich plasma versus local corticosteroid injection for the treatment of lateral epicondylitis: a randomised study. Int J Orthop 2020;6:1274–6.

30. Kamble P, Prabhu RM, Jogani A, Mohanty SS, Panchal S, Dakhode S. Is ultrasound (US)-guided platelet-rich plasma injection more efficacious as a treatment modality for lateral elbow tendinopathy than US-guided steroid injection?: a prospective triple-blinded study with midterm follow-up. Clin Orthop Surg 2023;15:454–62.

31. Yadav R, Kothari SY, Borah D. Comparison of local injection of platelet rich plasma and corticosteroids in the treatment of lateral epicondylitis of humerus. J Clin Diagn Res 2015;9:RC05–7.

32. Gautam VK, Verma S, Batra S, Bhatnagar N, Arora S. Platelet-rich plasma versus corticosteroid injection for recalcitrant lateral epicondylitis: clinical and ultrasonographic evaluation. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong) 2015;23:1–5.

33. Bashir SI, Lone F, Rameez R. Injection of platelet rich plasma versus corticosteroid injection in the treatment of tennis elbow: a prospective randomized comparative study. Int J Orthop Sci 2020;6:1164–7.

34. Nasser ME, El Yasaki AZ, Ezz El Mallah RM, Abdelazeem AS. Treatment of lateral epicondylitis with platelet-rich plasma, glucocorticoid, or saline: a comparative study. Egypt Rheumatol Rehabil 2017;44:1–10.

35. Gosens T, Peerbooms JC, van Laar W, den Oudsten BL. Ongoing positive effect of platelet-rich plasma versus corticosteroid injection in lateral epicondylitis: a double-blind randomized controlled trial with 2-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med 2011;39:1200–8.

36. Sayadi S, Shahbazi P, Najafi A, et al. Platelet-rich plasma versus corticosteroid: a randomized controlled trial on tennis elbow patients resistant to nonsurgical treatments. Ann Med Surg (Lond) 2023;85:4385–8.

37. Japatti MS, Janardhan PT. A randomized control trial to compare the efficacy of intralesional platelet rich plasma vs steroid in lateral epicondylitis: a prospective interventional study. Natl J Clin Orthop 2020;4:53–60.

38. Tasneem R, Aziz A, Yameen I, Khan A. Comparison of outcome of steroid versus platelet rich plasma injections in the treatment of lateral epicondylitis of humerus. Ann Punjab Med Coll 2019;13:33–6.

39. Bin Saeed U, Bin Saaed T, Tariq S. Tennis elbow: comparison of platelet rich plasma with steroid injection in treatment. Prof Med J 2018;25:196–200.

40. Kaur C, Kukar N, Dahuja A, Shyam R. Functional outcome of single dose of platlet rich plasma vs steroid in the treatment of chronic recalcitrant lateral epicondylitis. Int J Med Pharm Res 2023;4:225–30.

41. Omar AS, Ibrahim ME, Ahmed AS, Said M. Local injection of autologous platelet rich plasma and corticosteroid in treatment of lateral epicondylitis and plantar fasciitis: randomized clinical trial. Egypt Rheumatol 2012;34:43–9.

42. Güngör E, Karakuzu Güngör Z. Comparison of the efficacy of corticosteroid, dry needling, and PRP application in lateral epicondylitis. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 2022;32:1569–75.

43. Varudu C, Matha S, Panjala K. A randomised control trial for analysing effectiveness of corticosteroid versus platelet rich plasma injection in tennis elbow. Glob J Med Public Health 2021;10:1–6.

44. Palacio EP, Schiavetti RR, Kanematsu M, Ikeda TM, Mizobuchi RR, Galbiatti JA. Effects of platelet-rich plasma on lateral epicondylitis of the elbow: prospective randomized controlled trial. Rev Bras Ortop 2016;51:90–5.

45. Jain P, Maheshwari M, Jain RK, Prajapati R. A comparative study of efficacy of intra-lesional dry needling, platelet rich plasma and corticosteroid in lateral epicondylitis. Orthop J MPC 2020;26:81–5.

46. Sadiq AQ, Hassan F, Ali A, Hassan N, Fazlani N, Samar N. Comparative study of efficacy between platelet-rich plasma vs corticosteroid injection in the treatment of lateral epicondylitis. Ann Punjab Med Coll 2023;17:372–7.

47. Seetharamaiah VB, Gantaguru A, Basavarajanna S. A comparative study to evaluate the efficacy of platelet-rich plasma and triamcinolone to treat tennis elbow. Indian J Orthop 2017;51:304–11.

48. Khan MU, Khan MK, Hanif M, Akhter M, Nadeem A, Saleem M. Comparison of platelet rich plasma concentrate and corticosteroid in treatment oflateral epicondylitis. J Fatima Jinnah Med Univ 2016;10:109–14.

49. Pienimäki TT, Siira PT, Vanharanta H. Chronic medial and lateral epicondylitis: a comparison of pain, disability, and function. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2002;83:317–21.

50. Mi B, Liu G, Zhou W, et al. Platelet rich plasma versus steroid on lateral epicondylitis: meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Phys Sportsmed 2017;45:97–104.

51. Lebiedziński R, Synder M, Buchcic P, Polguj M, Grzegorzewski A, Sibiński M. A randomized study of autologous conditioned plasma and steroid injections in the treatment of lateral epicondylitis. Int Orthop 2015;39:2199–203.

52. Hao Q, Devji T, Zeraatkar D, et al. Minimal important differences for improvement in shoulder condition patient-reported outcomes: a systematic review to inform a BMJ Rapid Recommendation. BMJ Open 2019;9:e028777.

53. Smith-Forbes EV, Howell DM, Willoughby J, Pitts DG, Uhl TL. Specificity of the minimal clinically important difference of the quick Disabilities of the Arm Shoulder and Hand (QDASH) for distal upper extremity conditions. J Hand Ther 2016;29:81–8.

54. Zhang JM, An J. Cytokines, inflammation, and pain. Int Anesthesiol Clin 2007;45:27–37.

55. Zhou X, Fragala MS, McElhaney JE, Kuchel GA. Conceptual and methodological issues relevant to cytokine and inflammatory marker measurements in clinical research. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care 2010;13:541–7.

TOOLS