SynthesisBioMed research international2015
Platelet-rich plasma in the treatment of subcutaneous venous access device scars: a head-to-head patient survey.
Synthesis in BioMed research international, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of Efficacy of Autologous Platelet Rich Plasma Versus Silicone Products for Treatment of Scars.Sultan Qaboos University medical journal · 2026Trial
- Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) in oncological patients: long-term oncological outcome analysis of the treatment of subcutaneous venous access device scars in 89 breast cancer patients.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2022Article
- Restorative oncodermatology: Diagnosis and management of dermatologic sequelae from cancer therapies.Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology · 2021Review
- Platelet-Rich Plasma (PRP) in Breast Cancer Patients: An Application Analysis of 163 Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsies.BioMed research international · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPlatelet-rich plasma (PRP) is a product widely used in sports medicine, tissue repair, and general surgery. A recent meta-analysis showed this product to be beneficial when introduced into a wound area, be it intra-articular (i.e., joint-injections) or direct introduction onto the wound surface.
methodsBetween the years of 2012 and 2014 a questionnaire evaluating surgical outcome after port (venous access device) removal was answered by 100 patients in the control group and 20 patients in a PRP group, leading to a total of 120 patients in this single center, retrospective, subjective outcome evaluation.
resultsNo statistical difference was shown in postsurgical complication rates, postsurgical pain, decreased mobility, and overall quality of life. A significant difference was shown in overall patient satisfaction and the desire to further improve port area scarring. Results differed significantly in favor of the PRP group. Interestingly, approximately 40.2% of patients are dissatisfied with the surgical outcome after port removal in the control group. This result, though surprising, may be improved to 10% dissatisfaction when a PRP product is used.
conclusionPRP products such as Arthrex ACP are safe to use and present an additional option in improving surgical outcome.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.