Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33476481›Full record

ArticleInternational wound journal2021

An evaluation of the bacteriostatic effect of platelet-rich plasma.

Oliver J Smith, Aditya Wicaksana, Donald Davidson, David Spratt, Ash Mosahebi

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International wound journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
4.8field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Platelet-rich plasma for pilonidal disease: a systematic review.The Journal of international medical research · 2023
    Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. PRP and PRF-Subgroups and Divisions When Used in Dentistry.Journal of personalized medicine · 2021
    Review
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Oliver J SmithDepartment of Plastic Surgery, Royal Free Hospital, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3290-7366
Aditya WicaksanaDivision of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8890-4474
Donald DavidsonMicrobial Diseases, Eastman Dental Institute, Faculty of Medical Sciences, University College London, London, UK.
David SprattMicrobial Diseases, Eastman Dental Institute, Faculty of Medical Sciences, University College London, London, UK.
Ash MosahebiDepartment of Plastic Surgery, Royal Free Hospital, London, UK.
Eastman Dental Hospital · GBThe Royal Free Hospital · GBUniversity of Indonesia · ID

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Chronic wounds are a considerable health burden with high morbidity and poor rates of healing. Colonisation of chronic wounds by bacteria can be a significant factor in their poor healing rate. These bacteria can develop antibiotic resistance over time and can lead to wound infections, systemic illness, and occasionally amputation. When a large number of micro-organisms colonise wounds, they can lead to biofilm formation, which are self-perpetuating colonies of bacteria closed within an extracellular matrix, which are poorly penetrated by antibiotics. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is an autologous blood product rich in growth factors and cytokines that are involved in an inflammatory response. PRP can be injected or applied to a wound as a topical gel, and there is some interest regarding its antimicrobial properties and whether this can improve wound healing. This study aimed to evaluate the in vitro bacteriostatic effect of PRP. PRP was collected from healthy volunteers and processed into two preparations: activated PRP-activated with calcium chloride and ethanol; inactivated PRP. The activity of each preparation against Staphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcus epidermis was evaluated against a control by three experiments: bacterial kill assay to assess planktonic bacterial growth; plate colony assay to assess bacterial colony growth; and colony biofilm assay to assess biofilm growth. Compared with control, both preparations of PRP significantly inhibited growth of planktonic S aureus and S epidermis. Activated PRP reduced planktonic bacterial concentration more than inactivated PRP in both bacteria. Both PRP preparations significantly reduced bacterial colony counts for both bacteria when compared with control; however, there was no difference between the two. There was no difference found between biofilm growth in either PRP against control or against the other preparation. This study demonstrates that PRP does have an inhibitory effect on the growth of common wound pathogens. Activation may be an important factor in increasing the antimicrobial effect of PRP. However, we did not find evidence of an effect against more complex bacterial colonies.

Indexed as

Platelet-Rich PlasmaStaphylococcal InfectionsWound InfectionAnti-Bacterial AgentsHumansWound HealingAnti-Bacterial Agentsantimicrobial therapychronic woundsplatelet-rich plasma

Identifiers

PMID33476481
PMCPMC8273594
OpenAlexW3121750183

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.