Ross Hauser, MD; Danielle Matias, PA-C; Demi Foster, APRN
Many people who contact Caring Medical about lower back pain have already tried medication, back braces, exercise, physical therapy, or epidural steroid injections. Their MRI may show degenerative discs, a disc bulge, facet arthritis, spinal stenosis, or spondylolisthesis. Yet the reason their pain continues may remain unclear.
When considering platelet-rich plasma, or PRP, patients often ask whether the injection goes into a disc. That is an important distinction because PRP research includes several different targets: discs, facet joints, sacroiliac joints, supporting ligaments, and the epidural region around spinal nerves. These applications should not be treated as equivalent. (1)
At Caring Medical, we use PRP together with dextrose Prolotherapy for lower back pain, rather than using PRP as a stand-alone treatment. Our approach focuses on the joint and ligament structures that may contribute to painful lumbar and pelvic instability. The goal is potentially better results by addressing relevant supporting tissues, rather than assuming that one injection or one MRI finding explains the entire problem.
This is our clinical rationale, with some supporting research. It is not a claim that the combination has been proven superior for every patient. A small randomized trial directly relevant to combined PRP and Prolotherapy found an additional pain benefit at six months, while most other between-group outcomes were similar. (2)
What is PRP, and what is Prolotherapy?
PRP is prepared from a sample of the patient’s own blood. Centrifugation separates blood components to produce a plasma preparation containing concentrated platelets. Platelets release growth factors and other signaling molecules involved in inflammation and tissue repair. However, preparations differ in platelet concentration, white blood cell content, activation, and other characteristics. “PRP” does not describe a single standardized product. (3)
Dextrose Prolotherapy uses a dextrose-based solution injected into selected musculoskeletal tissues. Its proposed effects include stimulation of a local repair response and modulation of pain signaling. Clinical research examines pain and function more often than directly measuring ligament repair or restored mechanical stability. (4)
We discuss the combined approach because supporting ligaments and joint capsules may be relevant to persistent pain. The published evidence includes a course of PRP followed by dextrose injections; that is one research approach to studying the combination.
Why we consider more than the disc
A degenerative disc can be painful, but an abnormal-looking disc is not automatically the only source of symptoms. Facet joints, joint capsules, sacroiliac structures, ligaments, muscles, and irritated nerve roots can produce overlapping symptoms. Some patients have more than one contributing structure. (1)
Our clinical perspective emphasizes the possibility that painful supporting tissues and abnormal loading remain relevant even when the MRI draws attention to a disc. We therefore consider PRP and Prolotherapy together as an approach to potentially improve outcomes when those tissues are involved.
This does not mean that every degenerated disc developed because of a ligament injury. Disc degeneration is multifactorial. It also does not mean that treating ligaments has been shown to restore disc height, reverse spinal stenosis, or remove a herniated fragment pressing on a nerve.
Our discussion of Prolotherapy for low back pain explains the ligament and lumbar instability perspective in greater detail.
Where PRP and Prolotherapy fit in Caring Medical’s approach
At Caring Medical, our use of PRP with Prolotherapy focuses on relevant facet capsular, sacroiliac, and other lumbar and pelvic ligament structures. The intradiscal and epidural studies discussed below provide context about other applications; they do not describe our lumbar injection approach.
This illustration shows joint and ligament regions relevant to combined PRP and Prolotherapy. An anatomical illustration does not establish that each structure is painful or requires treatment in every patient.
The clinical aim is to address an appropriate source of pain and supporting-tissue dysfunction. Whether adding PRP produces a clinically meaningful improvement over Prolotherapy alone remains an important research question.
Research directly examining PRP followed by Prolotherapy
The most directly relevant trial enrolled 34 people with chronic nonspecific low back pain that had not responded to conventional management. Participants received either PRP or lidocaine injections into lumbopelvic ligaments for two weeks, followed by dextrose Prolotherapy in both groups for two weeks. Four participants did not complete the study. (2)
Both groups improved in pain and disability. At six months, pain favored the PRP-plus-Prolotherapy group by approximately 0.9 points, with a confidence interval of 0.10–1.75. Most other comparisons between groups, including disability measures, were not statistically different. (2)
This offers preliminary support for a possible additional pain benefit from incorporating PRP into a Prolotherapy-based approach. The small sample, modest difference, and similar disability findings limit the conclusion. Because there was no PRP-only group, the trial cannot establish that the combination outperforms PRP alone or quantify a biological synergy. (2)
The study is relevant to our theme precisely because it examined lumbopelvic ligaments and a combined course of treatment. It should be distinguished from studies that injected only a disc or a single facet joint.
Newer Prolotherapy research relevant to the combination rationale
A 2026 pragmatic randomized trial analyzed 104 participants with chronic low back pain and associated leg pain. It compared dextrose Prolotherapy with epidural steroid injections. Pain and disability favored Prolotherapy at six and twelve months after treatment completion. At twelve months, estimated pain scores were approximately 5.2 versus 6.9 out of 10. (5)
This supports further consideration of Prolotherapy for selected patients. It was unblinded, allowed different numbers of treatments in the two groups, and did not test PRP or the combined approach. Residual pain also remained substantial on average, so the findings should not be described as a universal cure. (5)
A 2025 systematic review found that Prolotherapy studies in chronic low back pain produced heterogeneous results, including positive and minimal or absent effects. Its overall conclusion was that the evidence remained inconclusive. That context belongs alongside the newer favorable trial. (4)
Mechanical and functional lumbar instability
The lumbar spine and pelvis distribute load through discs, joints, ligaments, and muscles working together. The lumbosacral ligaments support the junction between the lower spine and sacrum. Sacroiliac ligaments support the connection between the sacrum and pelvic bones, while iliolumbar ligaments connect the lower lumbar spine with the pelvis.
Mechanical instability refers to abnormal movement or inadequate structural restraint. Functional instability also involves control of movement under load, including muscular and neuromuscular contributions. Pain with a particular activity may suggest a mechanical component, but it does not by itself establish ligament laxity.
This helps explain our emphasis on the lumbar-pelvic connection. It also explains why the response to a disc-targeted treatment may be incomplete when other tissues contribute. The location of pain alone cannot identify the responsible structure.
The lower spine, pelvis, and hips are mechanically connected. The presence of several nearby structures makes accurate identification of the relevant pain source important.
Iliolumbar syndrome: research focused on a ligament rather than a disc
A study assessed 57 people with suspected iliolumbar syndrome. Forty-five had a favorable response to a diagnostic local-anesthetic injection and subsequently received PRP into the iliolumbar ligament. Forty-two showed clinical and ultrasound improvement at six weeks. (6)
This supports considering selected ligament pain even when disc treatment has been discussed. However, it was an uncontrolled study with short follow-up. The reported 93% improvement proportion applies to a selected subgroup and should not be presented as a general PRP success rate or proof of permanent ligament restoration. (6)
PRP outcomes in 67 patients with persistent low back pain
A 2019 study described 67 patients receiving PRP into ligaments, muscles, and fascia around the lumbar spine. Participants received one, two, or three treatments. Reported overall improvement averaged approximately 36%, 46%, and 55%, respectively, with improvements in pain or daily function. (7)
The results are relevant to treatment outside the disc. However, this was not a randomized dose-comparison study. People receiving different numbers of treatments may differ in other important ways, so the results cannot establish that three treatments are necessarily better than one. It also did not test combined PRP and dextrose Prolotherapy. (7)
PRP for lumbar facet joints: encouraging findings and important disagreements
Facet joints are the small joints at the back of the spine. Their capsules and surrounding structures help guide movement. Facet pain can coexist with disc degeneration, but imaging alone does not establish which finding causes symptoms.
What earlier facet studies found
A 19-patient series reported good or excellent outcomes in 15 participants at three months after facet PRP injections. Another uncontrolled study of 49 patients reported improvement after treatment for isolated facet syndrome. Both are useful preliminary observations, but neither establishes comparative effectiveness. (8) (9)
A review also described a five-patient series treating facet joints and supporting tissues, along with a 46-patient comparison of PRP and local anesthetic/corticosteroid injections. These early studies helped generate interest in treating more than one contributing structure, but their findings do not establish that every patient needs multiple injection targets. (3)
A 30-patient randomized study found improvement with either PRP or corticosteroid injections at three months. PRP produced greater improvement in MRI-detected synovitis, meaning inflammation of the joint lining. An imaging difference does not necessarily establish greater long-term symptom relief. (10)
Newer randomized trials have not all reached the same conclusion
A 50-participant trial used two diagnostic intra-articular blocks to select people with facet-mediated pain. At six months, several responder and disability outcomes favored PRP over corticosteroids, although not every average outcome differed significantly. (11)
In contrast, a later 76-patient randomized trial did not demonstrate PRP superiority for its six-month pain endpoint. Only six PRP recipients and five corticosteroid recipients achieved a 50% improvement in spontaneous pain at that time. (12)
A 2026 review pooling ten randomized or quasi-randomized facet and sacroiliac studies, totaling 392 patients, found pain outcomes favoring PRP at three and six months. Disability differences were less convincing, and the authors considered the evidence inconclusive because of limited certainty and variation between studies. (13)
These findings support a careful discussion of possible benefit. They do not establish that facet PRP always outperforms steroid, nor do single-joint studies directly test Caring Medical’s combination of PRP and Prolotherapy.
PRP and the sacroiliac region
Pain near the sacroiliac joint may involve the joint itself, surrounding ligaments, or another nearby structure. Research on an injection inside the joint should not automatically be applied to injections into surrounding ligaments.
A 2026 randomized study enrolled 44 patients whose sacroiliac pain had responded to an anesthetic block; 40 remained in the three-month analysis. Both PRP and steroid/anesthetic injections reduced pain. Although several results numerically favored PRP, the difference in the primary pain outcome was not statistically significant. Follow-up was short. (14)
This adds relevant evidence while emphasizing why the anatomical target and patient selection matter.
PRP versus epidural steroid injections for sciatica and radiculopathy
Radiculopathy involves irritation or dysfunction of a spinal nerve root. A transforaminal epidural injection approaches the region around the nerve through an opening beside the spine. This differs from injecting a facet joint, ligament, or disc.
Published comparisons provide useful information when interpreted individually:
- A 124-patient randomized trial found similar improvements with transforaminal PRP and steroid over one year. No significant between-group differences were identified in the measured outcomes. (15)
- A 30-patient trial found greater leg-pain improvement with PRP at six, twelve, and twenty-four weeks, with a disability advantage at twenty-four weeks. The small sample limits confidence. (16)
- A 42-patient trial reported greater six-month pain reduction with PRP than epidural local anesthetic/steroid treatment. This was another small study and did not evaluate Prolotherapy. (17)
- A 60-patient trial reported more persistent clinically meaningful improvement in the PRP group, although not all between-group comparisons were significant. (18)
- A 46-patient pilot study found faster early improvement with steroid and better intermediate outcomes with PRP. At one year, outcomes were comparable, and many participants underwent additional injection treatment or surgery during follow-up. (19)
A newer 2026 trial of 107 patients likewise found earlier improvement with steroid and better reported pain and disability outcomes with PRP at six and twelve weeks. Twelve-week results cannot establish long-term protection against recurrence or surgery. (20)
These studies support ongoing investigation of PRP for selected radicular pain. They do not establish that ligament-directed PRP and Prolotherapy decompress a severely compressed nerve or replace necessary surgery.
What about pain after back surgery?
A retrospective 62-patient study involving people with and without previous lumbar disc surgery. Pain and disability improved following epiduroscopic treatment with PRP or corticosteroids. The procedure also involved other interventions, including mechanical adhesiolysis, so improvement cannot be attributed solely to the injected substance. (21)
Persistent pain after surgery therefore requires its own explanation. Scar-related pain, recurrent nerve compression, joint pain, instability, and other causes should not be grouped together as one PRP-responsive condition.
Intradiscal PRP: why this remains a separate question
An intradiscal injection enters the disc itself. Research on this approach addresses discogenic pain, meaning pain attributed to the disc, rather than proving that injections around the spine have the same effect.
An uncontrolled 2022 trial analyzed 31 patients through forty-eight weeks. Twenty-two were classified as treatment successes, but one patient developed discitis, a disc infection requiring surgery. Without a control group, the improvement proportion cannot establish how much benefit came from PRP. The infection is a reminder that using a patient’s own blood does not eliminate procedural risk. (22)
A 2025 randomized study of 40 patients reported better pain, function, and some MRI findings with intradiscal PRP than methylene blue at six months. The small sample and active comparator limit broader conclusions; it does not establish predictable restoration of disc height or normal disc structure. (23)
New October 2026 review: PRP preparation and uncertainty in discogenic pain
A systematic review of eleven randomized studies, involving 623 patients, found no statistically significant pooled advantage for PRP in pain or function at the analyzed time points. Certainty was very low and heterogeneity was high. Only one study reported preparation methods completely enough for replication, and only two fully reported platelet yield and leukocyte counts. (24)
A separate 2026 review of fifteen randomized trials involving 740 patients found overall benefits for pain and disability, but more consistent findings for non-discogenic pain than for longer-term discogenic outcomes. Substantial variation between studies remained a limitation. (25)
The differing findings reinforce a central distinction: the pain source, injection target, and preparation matter. A favorable result in one PRP application should not become a promise about another.
Why several painful structures may matter
A 2023 systematic review discussed the rationale for studying multiple targets when disc and facet degeneration coexist. That rationale helps explain our interest in PRP together with Prolotherapy. However, the presence of several degenerative findings does not establish that all are painful or that injecting every abnormal structure improves outcomes. (1)
For some patients, addressing supporting tissues may be relevant to symptoms that a disc-focused approach does not explain. For others, the important problem may be nerve compression, inflammatory disease, hip pathology, or another condition. Our combination rationale should remain connected to the individual pain mechanism rather than treated as a universal treatment claim.
Does improvement mean the disc or ligament has regenerated?
Less pain and better daily function are meaningful outcomes. They do not, by themselves, demonstrate that a ligament has regained normal tensile strength, that disc height has increased, or that degeneration has been reversed.
Many PRP studies measure pain scales and disability questionnaires. These outcomes can support a clinical benefit without demonstrating the biological mechanism responsible. Likewise, laboratory evidence that platelets participate in repair does not establish that an injected preparation reliably rebuilds every degenerative tissue. (3)
The goal of combining PRP and Prolotherapy is potentially better clinical results when relevant joint and ligament tissues contribute to pain. Structural restoration and superiority over either treatment alone remain separate claims requiring stronger evidence.
What about physical therapy, exercise, and other options?
Previous difficulty with exercise does not mean all rehabilitation is inappropriate. The type and intensity of activity, nerve symptoms, conditioning, and the underlying diagnosis can affect tolerance. Activity modification, appropriate exercise, and conventional medical care remain relevant considerations alongside injection discussions.
A lumbar MRI also needs clinical interpretation. Disc degeneration, stenosis, spondylolisthesis, sacroiliac pain, and referred hip or pelvic pain are different problems, even when symptoms overlap. PRP and Prolotherapy should not be presented as interchangeable treatments for every diagnosis.
Risks and warning signs that should not be overlooked
Injection risks include pain flares, bleeding, infection, and injury to nearby structures. Risks differ between superficial ligament, intra-articular, epidural, and intradiscal procedures. Small studies reporting no serious complications cannot establish that rare complications do not occur.
New bladder or bowel dysfunction, saddle numbness, or rapidly progressive leg weakness requires urgent assessment. Fever with severe back pain, significant trauma, or symptoms raising concern for infection, fracture, or malignancy also warrant medical evaluation. These situations should not be managed simply as chronic ligament pain.
Why we use PRP and Prolotherapy together
At Caring Medical, we use the two treatments together because supporting ligaments and joint capsules may be important contributors to persistent lower back pain. Our clinical rationale is that addressing appropriate joint and ligament tissues with complementary approaches may offer better results for some patients.
The small combined-treatment trial provides preliminary support for a possible added pain benefit. The broader evidence suggests that PRP and Prolotherapy can help selected patients, while also showing inconsistent results and important differences between treatment targets. (2) (5) (13)
The question is therefore more specific than “Does PRP work for back pain?” It is whether the relevant pain-generating tissues have been identified and whether the proposed treatment matches the evidence. Our low back pain and Prolotherapy article provides additional discussion of lumbar and pelvic ligament pain.
Medical disclaimer: This article provides general education and does not establish a diagnosis or an individual treatment recommendation. Results vary, and the evidence for combined PRP and Prolotherapy remains limited. New or progressive neurological symptoms require appropriate medical assessment.
References
1 Machado ES, Soares FP, Vianna de Abreu E, de Souza TADC, Meves R, Grohs H, Ambach MA, Navani A, de Castro RB, Pozza DH, Caldas JMP. Systematic Review of Platelet-Rich Plasma for Low Back Pain. Biomedicines. 2023;11(9):2404. doi:10.3390/biomedicines11092404. [Google Scholar]
2 Won SJ, Kim DY, Kim JM. Effect of platelet-rich plasma injections for chronic nonspecific low back pain: A randomized controlled study. Medicine. 2022;101(8):e28935. doi:10.1097/md.0000000000028935. [Google Scholar]
3 Baig MZ, Abdullah UEH, Muhammad A, Aziz A, Syed MJ, Darbar A. Use of Platelet-Rich Plasma in Treating Low Back Pain: A Review of the Current Literature. Asian spine journal. 2021;15(1):117-126. doi:10.31616/asj.2019.0161. [Google Scholar]
4 Mociu SI, Nedelcu AD, Lupu AA, Uzun AB, Iliescu DM, Ionescu EV, Iliescu MG. Prolotherapy as a Regenerative Treatment in the Management of Chronic Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review. Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania). 2025;61(9):1588. doi:10.3390/medicina61091588. [Google Scholar]
5 Wende O, Reeves KD, Vishnevsky G, Cheng AL, Rabago D. Prolotherapy versus epidural steroid injections for lumbar pain with associated leg pain: A pragmatic randomized controlled trial. PM & R : the journal of injury, function, and rehabilitation. 2026; published online. doi:10.1002/pmrj.70136. [Google Scholar]
6 Nayak BK, Singh DK, Kumar N, Jaiswal B. Recovering from nonspecific low back pain despair: Ultrasound-guided intervention in iliolumbar syndrome. The Indian journal of radiology & imaging. 2020;30(4):448-452. doi:10.4103/ijri.ijri_382_19. [Google Scholar]
7 Darrow M, Shaw B, Nicholas S, Li X, Boeger G. Treatment of unresolved lower back pain with platelet-rich plasma injections. Cogent Medicine. 2019;6(1):1581449. doi:10.1080/2331205X.2019.1581449. [Google Scholar]
8 Wu J, Du Z, Lv Y, Zhang J, Xiong W, Wang R, Liu R, Zhang G, Liu Q. A New Technique for the Treatment of Lumbar Facet Joint Syndrome Using Intra-articular Injection with Autologous Platelet Rich Plasma. Pain physician. 2016;19(8):617-625. [Google Scholar]
9 Byvaltsev VA, Kalinin AA, Okoneshnikova AK, Satardinova EE. [Analysis of the clinical efficacy of platelet-rich plasma therapy in the treatment of patients with isolated facet-syndrome of the lumbar spine]. Zhurnal nevrologii i psikhiatrii imeni S.S. Korsakova. 2019;119(11):27-31. doi:10.17116/jnevro201911911127. [Google Scholar]
10 Kotb SY, Sherif NM, Saleh HA, Ahmed SF, Sakr HM, Taeimah MO. The role of intra-articular injection of autologous platelet-rich plasma versus corticosteroids in the treatment of synovitis in lumbar facet joint disease. Saudi medical journal. 2022;43(11):1200-1208. doi:10.15537/smj.2022.43.11.20220449. [Google Scholar]
11 Cauchon AM, Mares C, Fan XY, Bois MC, Hagemeister N, Noiseux N, Roy A. Comparing the efficacy of intra-articular injection of Platelet Rich Plasma (PRP) with corticosteroids (CS) in patients with chronic zygapophyseal joint low back pain confirmed by double intra-articular diagnostic blocks: A triple-blinded randomized multicentric controlled trial with a 6-month follow-up. Interventional pain medicine. 2024;3(4):100525. doi:10.1016/j.inpm.2024.100525. [Google Scholar]
12 Geoffroy M, Beissat M, Kanagaratnam L, Ackah Miezan S, Salmon JH. Platelet-rich plasma versus corticosteroids in facet joint syndrome: A controlled, randomized, double-blind study. Joint bone spine. 2026;93(3):106001. doi:10.1016/j.jbspin.2025.106001. [Google Scholar]
13 Alatefi D, Alkabazi M, Alanzi A, Alsaleh B, Mubaidin SA, Amro M, Nofal MK, Gamal I, Kuzin M, Hezam A. Platelet-rich plasma versus corticosteroid injections for facet and sacroiliac joint pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis. Pain medicine (Malden, Mass.). 2026;27(10):1108-1122. doi:10.1093/pm/pnag072. [Google Scholar]
14 Peckham ME, McCormick ZL, Safazadeh G, Hutchins TA, Carlos RC, Shah LM. Comparison of CT-Guided Platelet-Rich Plasma versus Steroid/Anesthetic Injection for Treatment of Sacroiliac Joint Pain: A Randomized, Single-Blinded, Controlled Trial. AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology. 2026; published online. doi:10.3174/ajnr.a9307. [Google Scholar]
15 Xu Z, Wu S, Li X, Liu C, Fan S, Ma C. Ultrasound-Guided Transforaminal Injections of Platelet-Rich Plasma Compared with Steroid in Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Study. Neural plasticity. 2021;2021:5558138. doi:10.1155/2021/5558138. [Google Scholar]
16 Wongjarupong A, Pairuchvej S, Laohapornsvan P, Kotheeranurak V, Jitpakdee K, Yeekian C, Chanplakorn P. “Platelet-Rich Plasma” epidural injection an emerging strategy in lumbar disc herniation: a Randomized Controlled Trial. BMC musculoskeletal disorders. 2023;24(1):335. doi:10.1186/s12891-023-06429-3. [Google Scholar]
17 Singh GK, Talawar P, Kumar A, Sharma RS, Purohit G, Bhandari B. Effect of autologous platelet-rich plasma (PRP) on low back pain in patients with prolapsed intervertebral disc: A randomised controlled trial. Indian journal of anaesthesia. 2023;67(3):277-282. doi:10.4103/ija.ija_821_22. [Google Scholar]
18 Saraf A, Hussain A, Sandhu AS, Bishnoi S, Arora V. Transforaminal Injections of Platelet-Rich Plasma Compared with Steroid in Lumbar radiculopathy: A Prospective, Double-Blind Randomized Study. Indian journal of orthopaedics. 2023;57(7):1126-1133. doi:10.1007/s43465-023-00898-3. [Google Scholar]
19 Gupta A, Chhabra HS, Singh V, Nagarjuna D. Lumbar Transforaminal Injection of Steroids versus Platelet-Rich Plasma for Prolapse Lumbar Intervertebral Disc with Radiculopathy: A Randomized Double-Blind Controlled Pilot Study. Asian spine journal. 2024;18(1):58-65. doi:10.31616/asj.2023.0115. [Google Scholar]
20 Sonkar T, Yadav V, Singh S. A randomized controlled trial comparing transforaminal injections of Platelet-rich plasma versus steroid for lumbar herniated disc. Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma. 2026;81:103546. doi:10.1016/j.jcot.2026.103546. [Google Scholar]
21 Demirci AY. The retrospective analysis of platelet-rich plasma and corticosteroid injection under epiduroscopic guidance for radiculopathy in operated or unoperated patients for lumbar disc herniation. Turkish journal of physical medicine and rehabilitation. 2022;68(3):409-417. doi:10.5606/tftrd.2022.9005. [Google Scholar]
22 Zhang J, Liu D, Gong Q, Chen J, Wan L. Intradiscal Autologous Platelet-Rich Plasma Injection for Discogenic Low Back Pain: A Clinical Trial. BioMed research international. 2022;2022:9563693. doi:10.1155/2022/9563693. [Google Scholar]
23 Wang X, Wang S, Zhang J, Xie G, Zhang J. Platelet-rich plasma for the treatment of discogenic low back pain: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland). 2025;6:1648772. doi:10.3389/fpain.2025.1648772. [Google Scholar]
24 Madrazo-Ibarra A, de la Huerta-Meza D, Gutierrez-Naranjo JM, Kirschner JS. Preparation methods and clinical outcomes of platelet-rich plasma for chronic discogenic low back pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. PM & R : the journal of injury, function, and rehabilitation. 2026; published online. doi:10.1002/pmrj.70216. [Google Scholar]
25 Pei X, Liu C, Wang J, Lin H, Ye Z, Wang L, Wu B, Jin Y. Platelet-rich plasma therapy for low back pain: A comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of back and musculoskeletal rehabilitation. 2026:10538127261448983. doi:10.1177/10538127261448983. [Google Scholar]