Academic Influence and Industry Funding in Platelet-Rich Plasma Injections: Coauthorship Network Analysis

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.