Know why this shoulder guide names these clinics

Take your own symptoms to a clinician

Use the guide to note sore movements and important warning signs. It can help you describe the ache, but it can't examine your shoulder at home. Only an in-person exam can connect your soreness with weakness, stiffness, or a recent fall.

A clinician can check how far your arm moves and how much strength remains. Earlier X-rays or scans may also help when they match the exam. Your health and regular medicines can change which home steps are safe for you.

Keep the guide's limits in mind

Doctors may learn more when new human studies are published. Current PRP findings are mixed, so research can't promise how one shoulder will respond. This guide gives general information and doesn't replace advice based on your own exam.

Urgent symptoms still need care in the proper medical setting. Lasting soreness deserves a regular visit when sleep, dressing, or reaching remains hard. Take the questions that matter to you, and ask the clinician to answer them in plain words.

Sources

1. Arnold Caplan, who NAMED mesenchymal stem cells more than 25 years earlier, argued in Stem Cells Translational Medicine that the name should be changed. His stated reason is exactly the marketing problem: because MSCs are called 'stem cells', patients infer they will receive direct medical benefit, imagining the cells will differentiate into regenerating tissue-producing cells - and hundreds of clinics and trials now use human MSCs with very few focusing on the in vitro multipotential capacities the name refers to.

   Caplan AI, et al. — Mesenchymal Stem Cells: Time to Change the Name!. Stem cells translational medicine, 2017. DOI: 10.1002/sctm.17-0051.

2. A Nature comment by Sipp, Robey and Turner arguing that loose use of 'mesenchymal stem cell' across an enormous range of unrelated cell preparations has produced a scientific and commercial mess, and calling for the terminology and the evidentiary standards to be tightened. Included because the objection to the word comes from inside stem cell science, not from its critics.

   Sipp D, et al. — Clear up this stem-cell mess.. Nature, 2018. DOI: 10.1038/d41586-018-06756-9.

3. A 2026 systematic review and meta-analysis of 28 randomized trials of intra-articular mesenchymal stem cell-based therapies in knee OA found significant improvements in several pain and function measures (delta-VAS MD -1.67; KOOS pain MD 15.37) but NO significant difference in WOMAC, KOOS quality of life or the Lequesne index, and MRI-based WORMS scores were non-significant - indicating no consistent structural benefit. Its own conclusion: these therapies serve a primarily SYMPTOM-modifying rather than STRUCTURE-modifying role, with higher frequencies of local reactions to weigh against the symptomatic benefit.

   Awad G, et al. — Efficacy and safety of intra-articular mesenchymal stem cell-based therapies in knee osteoarthritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.. Clinical rheumatology, 2026. DOI: 10.1007/s10067-026-08042-w.

4. MACI (autologous cultured chondrocytes on a porcine collagen membrane, Vericel; STN BL 125603) IS an FDA-LICENSED cell therapy - and its approved indication is narrow and specific: repair of symptomatic, single or multiple FULL-THICKNESS cartilage defects OF THE KNEE, with or without bone involvement, in adults. It is not approved for osteoarthritis. The existence of one licensed cartilage cell therapy for focal defects is the sharpest available way to show what a licensed 'regeneration' product actually looks like, and how far it is from an injection for a worn joint.

   US Food and Drug Administration, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research — MACI (autologous cultured chondrocytes on porcine collagen membrane). FDA, 2024.

5. In the MOON Shoulder prospective cohort of 452 patients with symptomatic, ATRAUMATIC full-thickness rotator cuff tears, physical therapy succeeded in more than 70% of patients at 10 years: only 115 (27.0%) had surgery at any point over the decade. Patient-reported outcomes improved with physical therapy and did NOT decline over 10 years in those who never had surgery. The strongest predictor of early surgery was low patient expectation of physical therapy, not tear anatomy.

   Kuhn JE, et al. — The Predictors of Surgery for Symptomatic, Atraumatic Full-Thickness Rotator Cuff Tears Change Over Time: Ten-Year Outcomes of the MOON Shoulder Prospective Cohort.. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 2024. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.23.00978.

6. A 2026 meta-analysis of 10 randomized trials (n=591) found PRP and corticosteroid indistinguishable at 3-6 weeks and 3 months, with PRP pulling ahead at 6 months: ASES +10.8 (95% CI 4.71-16.80), Constant-Murley +10.7 (1.21-20.27) and VAS pain -0.8 (-1.45 to -0.18), plus fewer adverse events (RR 0.66, 0.44-0.99). The authors describe the benefit as statistically significant but CLINICALLY MODEST.

   Yuwarungsikul C, et al. — Platelet-rich plasma provides modest but durable functional benefit over corticosteroid for rotator cuff tendinopathy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc, 2026. DOI: 10.1002/ksa.70416.

7. A meta-analysis of nine randomized trials (469 patients) found corticosteroid superior to PRP in the SHORT term on Constant, Simple Shoulder Test and ASES scores, no difference at mid-term, and PRP superior in the LONG term on Simple Shoulder Test and ASES. The authors state explicitly that none of these differences reached the minimal clinically important difference.

   Peng Y, et al. — Comparison of the effects of platelet-rich plasma and corticosteroid injection in rotator cuff disease treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis.. J Shoulder Elbow Surg, 2023. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2023.01.037.

8. A meta-analysis of 36 randomized trials and 2,443 patients found that PRP used as augmentation during surgical rotator cuff repair significantly REDUCES the retear rate (p<0.001) while producing NO benefit on any clinical outcome at short or medium/long term; PRP injected in conservatively treated patients showed no clear advantage at all, with high heterogeneity.

   Feltri P, et al. — Platelet-rich plasma does not improve clinical results in patients with rotator cuff disorders but reduces the retear rate. A systematic review and meta-analysis.. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc, 2023. DOI: 10.1007/s00167-022-07223-9.