What to know before using this Peoria site

What to keep in mind about who runs it

Peoria PRP Field Notes is operated by the owners of the QC Kinetix Phoenix-area clinics. The same owners benefit when a reader uses this site's free-consultation link. At the clinics, medical providers are clinicians who examine joints and discuss office procedures. Their regenerative treatments include PRP and use material taken from your body. Because bookings help the owners, compare any claim with what your exam showed, what medical studies found, what remains unknown and what you’ll pay.

That’s a business interest worth remembering.

What to do with the medical sources

Each page names the medical sources used for its health facts and study summaries. Studies can disagree, especially about knee PRP. That’s why the site states the limits. It can’t predict your result, find the cause of soreness or stand in for urgent care. QC Kinetix can offer a consultation, but you still decide after hearing the exam findings, the full cost and what isn’t known. Medical studies describe groups, not your joint alone. It’s useful only when you get plain answers to those questions.

Use the sources to form questions, then ask the clinician.

Sources

1. A Delphi consensus of 24 invited experts produced the Minimum Information for Studies Evaluating Biologics in Orthopaedics (MIBO) checklists: 58 items reached consensus for PRP and were compiled into a 23-statement reporting checklist, with a parallel 25-statement checklist for mesenchymal stem cells. The need for it was identified because clinical studies of PRP and MSCs are 'limited by inadequate reporting of scientific details critical to outcome'.

   Murray IR, Geeslin AG, Goudie EB, et al. — Minimum Information for Studies Evaluating Biologics in Orthopaedics (MIBO): Platelet-Rich Plasma and Mesenchymal Stem Cells. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American), 2017. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.16.00793.

2. The American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation convened a technical expert panel that ran a structured literature review (2023, updated through June 2025) and a modified Delphi process, and issued five evidence-based clinical recommendations plus 11 consensus-based best practices for PRP in knee osteoarthritis. The statement is explicit that orthobiologic therapies 'remain an evolving area of practice' and that robust, dose-dependent randomized controlled trials are still needed to establish PRP's clinical effects.

   Borg-Stein J, Jayaram P, Colorado BS, et al. — AAPM&R guidance statement on platelet rich plasma for knee osteoarthritis. PM&R, 2026. DOI: 10.1002/pmrj.70144.

3. In the RESTORE trial - the largest placebo-controlled PRP trial in knee osteoarthritis - 288 adults aged 50+ with symptomatic Kellgren-Lawrence grade 2-3 medial knee OA received three weekly intra-articular injections of leukocyte-poor PRP from a commercial system or saline placebo. At 12 months the mean change in knee pain was -2.1 points with PRP versus -1.8 with saline (difference -0.4; 95% CI -0.9 to 0.2; P=.17) against a minimum clinically important difference of 1.8, and the change in medial tibial cartilage volume was -1.4% versus -1.2% (difference -0.2%; 95% CI -1.9% to 1.5%; P=.81). Twenty-nine of 31 prespecified secondary outcomes showed no significant between-group difference. The authors concluded the findings do not support use of PRP for knee OA.

   Bennell KL, Paterson KL, Metcalf BR, et al. — Effect of Intra-articular Platelet-Rich Plasma vs Placebo Injection on Pain and Medial Tibial Cartilage Volume in Patients With Knee Osteoarthritis: The RESTORE Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA, 2021. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2021.19415.

4. A meta-analysis of 34 randomized trials (1403 PRP knees, 1426 control knees) found WOMAC favoured PRP over placebo at 12 months (P=.02) and over hyaluronic acid at 6 and 12 months (P<.001), and favoured PRP over steroids on VAS pain and KOOS at 6 months. Critically, the authors reported that the superiority of PRP did NOT reach the minimal clinically important difference for any outcome, and graded the quality of evidence as low.

   Filardo G, Previtali D, Napoli F, et al. — PRP Injections for the Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Cartilage, 2021. DOI: 10.1177/1947603520931170.

5. A 24-site, 240-patient participant-blinded randomized trial of a single intratendinous PRP injection versus a sham (subcutaneous dry needle) for chronic midportion Achilles tendinopathy found VISA-A scores of 54.4 versus 53.4 at six months (adjusted mean difference -2.7; 95% CI -8.8 to 3.3) against a 12-point minimal clinically important difference. The authors stated the findings do not support the use of this treatment for chronic midportion Achilles tendinopathy.

   Kearney RS, Ji C, Warwick J, et al. — Effect of Platelet-Rich Plasma Injection vs Sham Injection on Tendon Dysfunction in Patients With Chronic Midportion Achilles Tendinopathy: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA, 2021. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2021.6986.

6. A placebo-controlled, double-blind randomized trial of 40 patients with chronic rotator cuff tendinopathy compared a single ultrasound-guided subacromial injection of 5 mL PRP with 5 mL saline, with both groups completing a 6-week standard exercise programme and follow-up to one year. PRP did not produce better outcomes than saline on any measure - a reminder that the exercise programme, not the injectate, carried the improvement.

   Kesikburun S, Tan AK, Yilmaz B, et al. — Platelet-rich plasma injections in the treatment of chronic rotator cuff tendinopathy: a randomized controlled trial with 1-year follow-up. American Journal of Sports Medicine, 2013. DOI: 10.1177/0363546513496542.

7. A network meta-analysis of 11 randomized trials (1353 patients) with HIP osteoarthritis found that for both pain and function, at 2-4 months and at 6 months, NO intervention - corticosteroid, hyaluronic acid or PRP - significantly outperformed an intra-articular saline placebo injection.

   Gazendam A, Ekhtiari S, Bozzo A, et al. — Intra-articular saline injection is as effective as corticosteroids, platelet-rich plasma and hyaluronic acid for hip osteoarthritis pain: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 2021. DOI: 10.1136/bjsports-2020-102179.

8. The devices used to spin PRP at the point of care are cleared by FDA as clinical centrifuges, product code JQC, a Class I device under 21 CFR 862.2050 - for example the Biomet GPS Platelet Separation Kit (K030555, cleared 2003) and the Harvest SmartPrep2 / SmartPrep Platelet Concentration System (K103340, cleared 2010). That clearance covers the equipment that separates blood. It is not an FDA approval of platelet-rich plasma as a treatment for osteoarthritis, tendinopathy or any other orthopedic condition, and copy must never blur the two.

   U.S. Food and Drug Administration (Center for Devices and Radiological Health) — 510(k) Premarket Notification database and Product Classification: JQC, Centrifuges (Micro, Ultra, Refrigerated) For Clinical Use, 21 CFR 862.2050. FDA accessdata (CDRH device databases), 2003.

9. Medicare's national coverage policy covers autologous platelet-rich plasma ONLY for patients with chronic non-healing diabetic, pressure and/or venous wounds, and only within an approved coverage-with-evidence-development clinical study. There is no Medicare national coverage for PRP in osteoarthritis or tendinopathy, which is why these injections are billed to the patient as cash-pay.

   Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services — Autologous Platelet-rich Plasma (Coverage with Evidence Development). CMS.gov, 2024.