SynthesisThe Journal of international medical research2023
Platelet-rich plasma for pilonidal disease: a systematic review.
Synthesis in The Journal of international medical research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pediatric endoscopic pilonidal sinus treatment (PEPSiT) as standard of care results over 10 years' experience in 507 patients.Scientific reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo examine the use of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) for treatment of pilonidal disease (PD) and thus provide a reference for clinical application.
methodsA systematic review of PubMed and the Cochrane Library was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. We considered all studies that reported the use of PRP for treatment of PD. Extracted data included the first author's name, year of publication, study type, number of included patients, inclusion and exclusion criteria, interventions, anesthesia, application of PRP (source, preparation, dose, and operation), antibiotics, follow-up time, therapeutic outcomes, and adverse events.
resultsIn total, eight randomized controlled trials and one prospective cohort study involving 809 patients were included. PRP reduced pain, accelerated healing, and reduced adverse events. The application of combined minimally invasive surgery achieved better results. However, overfilling of the wound with PRP in minimally invasive surgeries was shown to potentially increase the risk of adverse events.
conclusionPRP can be used as an adjuvant treatment in PD surgery to improve the therapeutic effect and reduce adverse events. The optimal combination of PRP and various factors is an important direction of future research.
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.