ArticleInternational wound journal2023
Utilization of a topical autologous blood clot for treatment of pressure ulcers.
Article in International wound journal, 2023. 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, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy and safety of RD2 Ver.02, a whole blood clot therapy, coupled with a minimally invasive procedure in pilonidal sinus: a phase II study.Techniques in coloproctology · 2024Trial
- Autologous whole blood clot formation with actigraft in patients receiving oral anticoagulant therapy: an ex vivo feasibility study.Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 2026Article
- Development of Smart Clothing to Prevent Pressure Injuries in Bedridden Persons and/or with Severely Impaired Mobility: 4NoPressure Research Protocol.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Utilization of a topical autologous blood clot for treatment of pressure ulcers.International wound journal · 2023Article
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 at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Management and treatment of pressure ulcers (PUs) are met with great difficulty due to various factors that cause vulnerability of the soft tissue such as location, limited mobility, increased friction and shearing forces, as well as other comorbidities that may delay or halt wound healing. The topical autologous blood clot therapy (TABCT) is a point-of-care treatment used as a blood clot to assist in recreating and repairing the extracellular matrix (ECM). The mechanism of action consists of reconstruction of the ECM by incorporating into the ulcer, providing protection from further external destruction, while assisting in advancement through the wound healing phases via interaction of necessary growth factors, mediators, and chemokines. This study aims to assess the efficacy of the TABCT in the treatment of PUs in comparison to standard of care (SOC) treatment. Twenty-four patients, 18 years or older, with PUs ranging from stage 1 to 4, were included in this study. TABCT was created by using the patient's own peripheral blood in a point of care setting. Efficacy in percent area reduction (PAR) on weeks 4 and 12 with TABCT over SOC was assessed. Treatment using TABCT in PUs resulted in 77.9% of the patients achieving a 50% PAR on week 4. The mean PAR on week 12 was 96.23% with 45% of the wounds treated with TABCT achieving complete wound closure. TABCT exhibited efficacy in PAR of PUs. In addition, TABCT use prompted granulation tissue formation over vital structures, such as bone, which is often present in later stage PUs. The potential of bringing an affordable, cost-effective, advanced biologic bedside treatment that is efficacious in resolution of these complex wounds has the potential to drastically reduce the burden of treatment on the health system.
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.