Academic Influence and Industry Funding in Platelet-Rich Plasma Injections: Coauthorship Network Analysis
Clinical Snapshot
PICO Framework
| P — Population | Authors of PRP injection research published in Q1 journals between 2017-2024 |
| I — Intervention | Industry funding (general and research payments) |
| C — Comparator | Authors without industry funding or different funding levels |
| O — Outcomes | Academic influence (betweenness centrality), publication count, study outcomes, collaboration patterns |
Bottom Line
This systematic review with network analysis reveals significant industry funding ($36.1 million) in PRP injection research, with general payments predominating over research funding. Importantly, funding levels did not correlate with publication output or study outcomes, suggesting financial relationships may not directly bias research findings. However, a small group of highly connected authors wields disproportionate influence in the field. While these findings provide valuable insights into the PRP research landscape, the study's methodological limitations - including unclear search strategy and lack of quality assessment - limit confidence in the conclusions. Australian clinicians should interpret PRP evidence based on clinical merit rather than funding sources, while remaining aware of potential conflicts of interest in the literature.
Key Findings
P Value: P < 0.05 for general vs research payments; P = 0.40 for funding-publication correlation
Effect Size: Top 10% of authors accounted for >40% of betweenness centrality
Primary Outcome: Total industry funding of $36.1 million to PRP authors from 2017-2024
Nnt Or Sensitivity: Correlation coefficient r = 0.368 between funding and publication count
Confidence Interval: Not reported
Clinical Application
High - findings inform understanding of research landscape and potential conflicts of interest Limited direct applicability as analysis focuses on US payment data; Australian clinicians should consider local TGA regulations and PBS coverage decisions for PRP independently Orthopaedic surgeons and sports medicine physicians considering PRP therapy
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections have gained popularity in the fields of orthopaedics and sports medicine despite inconsistent evidence regarding clinical efficacy. Concerns have placed a role on industry funding in shaping the development of PRP injection literature. Therefore, the aim of this study is to investigate the relationship between industry funding and academic influence in PRP injection research. METHODS: A systematic review was done of PRP injection literature published between 2017 and 2024, all from Q1 (top quartile) peer-reviewed journals based on Scopus journal ranking metrics. Overall, 81 studies were included in final analysis. Authors were linked to the Open Payments Database (OPD) and were identified through their national provider identifier (NPI) number. A coauthorship network analysis was used to map patterns of collaboration among authors in the field. RESULTS: The majority of studies identified were randomized control trials (38.3%). From 2017 to 2024, total industry funding to PRP authors totaled $36.1 million. Markedly more general payments than research payments were there (P < 0.05). Funding did not markedly correlate with publication count (r = 0.368, P = 0.40). No notable association was found between funding type and study outcome for either general (P = 0.482) or research (P = 0.481) payments. A centralized structure of 621 unique authors revealed that the top 10% of contributors accounted for more than 40% of all betweenness activity among these authors. CONCLUSION: The majority of industry funding in PRP injection research is directed as general payments. A small cohort of authors hold disproportionate influence over the community.
References
- 1.Michelberger, M., Waite, C., Alkhouri, S., Ahmad, S., Nadeem-Tariq, A., Fang, C. J., Evans, S., Maitra, S., & Nelson, K. (2026). Academic influence and industry funding in platelet-rich plasma injections: Coauthorship network analysis. Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Global Research & Reviews. https://doi.org/10.5435/JAAOSGlobal-D-26-00093
Related Research
The Knee
Artificial intelligence in the management of sports knee injuries: a narrative review.
3 Aug 2026
Clinical spine surgery
An Introduction to Machine Learning for the Practicing Spine Surgeon
2 Aug 2026
Seminars in musculoskeletal radiology
Artificial Intelligence (Pattern Recognition) in Musculoskeletal Imaging: The Future or Hype?
2 Aug 2026
This content is for educational purposes for healthcare professionals only and does not constitute clinical advice. Clinical decisions should be based on individual patient assessment, current guidelines, and appropriate specialist consultation. Editorial Standards · Privacy Policy · Terms of Service