Blood therapy

Does the story adequately discuss the costs of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

The story includes some information on costs, but we question the accuracy of it.

It says injection with a special syringe costs $250, and that the doctor’s consultation and injection are likely to be covered by insurance. It says some insurers won’t cover the $250 cost.

But the reporter may be underestimating the total costs. Other sources quote the cost of PRP at $400 to $600, with some as high as $2,000.

It appears the $250 out-of-pocket estimate is best-case. The reporter should have said this and included a price range, especially if it turns out none of the costs are covered by insurance.

Does the story adequately quantify the benefits of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Not Satisfactory

The story includes no data on benefits. 

Does the story adequately explain/quantify the harms of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

The story allows practitioners to emphasize the procedure’s safety–by, among other things, stating that it involves injecting the patient’s own platelets into the site of the injury, thus avoiding rejection as a risk.

But it should have plainly stated that the safety of the procedure has not been established in clinical trials, and that it carries at least minor risks of infection, misapplication and the procedure not working. 

It should also have said that the long-term effects of the treatment are not known. 

Does the story seem to grasp the quality of the evidence?

Not Satisfactory

The report is based only on anecdotes and practitioners’ broad-brush assessments of their clinical experiences.

There is nothing inherently wrong with this, but the report should have been more explicit about the lack of clinical trials on this application of PRP therapy.

While it mentions that at least one research study is underway, it should have clarified other key facts: 

• Most published research into soft-tissue use of PRP has been in animals. One small study was published in a sports medicine journal in 2006. 
• A 2008 literature review concluded the practice shows promise but a lack of research makes it impossible to assess benefits and risks. It clearly states that outcomes appear to be highly dependent on patient and injury selection. 
• The statement that PRP is "FDA approved" for use on healing bone is incorrect. The FDA does not approve procedures, only devices. The FDA ruled that the devices used to inject PRP into bone are substantially equivalent to a device currently on the market, clearing the way for the marketing of the new device. It made a similar ruling on the centrifuge that permits smaller quantities of blood to be spun to separate platelets for therapeutic use. 
• Further, the reporter should have inquired into research European medical bodies have used to justify its use for soft-tissue injuries. Approval of the procedure is implied but not clarified.