ReviewFrontiers in surgery2022
The Application of Platelet-Rich Plasma for Patients Following Total Joint Replacement: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials and Systematic Review.
Review in Frontiers in surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Exploring Platelet-Rich Plasma Therapy for Knee Osteoarthritis: An In-Depth Analysis.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2024Review
- Addressing Knee Osteoarthritis Pathology Through Platelet-Rich Plasma Treatment: A Comprehensive Review.Advances in orthopedics · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The clinical efficacy of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) in the treatment of total joint replacement (TJR) remains inconclusive. In this paper, systematic review and meta-analysis was adopted to assess the efficacy of using PRP for the treatment of TJR. Methods: A comprehensive search of Medline, Embase, and Cochrane library databases for randomized controlled trial (RCT) articles recording data of PRP for TJR was conducted from inception to February 2022. Outcomes concerned were pain, range of motion (ROM), WOMAC score, length of hospital stay (LOS), hemoglobin (Hb) drop, total blood loss, wound healing rate, and wound infection. The methodological quality of the included RCTs was evaluated by using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2.0 (RoB 2.0). The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) was utilized to assess the level of evidence for the outcomes. Subgroup analysis was conducted according to the type of TJR. Results: Ten RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. In the TKA subgroup, the available data demonstrated that there were significant differences in the outcomes of pain and Hb drop, while it was the opposite of ROM, WOMAC score, LOS, total blood loss, wound healing rate, and wound infection. In the THA subgroup, no significant differences could be seen between two groups in the outcomes of LOS and wound infection. However, the PRP group gained a higher wound healing rate in the THA subgroup. Conclusion: The application of PRP did not reduce blood loss but improved the wound healing rate. However, more prospective and multicenter studies are warranted to confirm these results.
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.