SynthesisActa cirurgica brasileira2025
Performance of blood concentrates in controlling inflammatory signs and symptoms after lower third molar extractions: an overview.
Synthesis in Acta cirurgica brasileira, 2025. 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.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo summarize the available evidence and answer the following question: What is the current knowledge on the performance of blood concentrates in handling sequelae after lower third molar extractions with the evidence available in systematic reviews?
methodsAn electronic search was conducted across nine databases. The study included systematic reviews with or without meta-analyses investigating the performance of blood concentrates in managing sequelae after lower third molar extractions. The four outcomes analyzed were pain, edema, mouth opening, and alveolar osteitis. The AMSTAR-2 tool assessed the methodological quality of the included systematic reviews, while ROBIS evaluated the risk of bias.
resultsThe electronic search revealed 690 records, of which 15 were eligible systematic reviews for the present study. Overall, these reviews evaluated 75 primary studies published from 2007 to 2023. According to AMSTAR-2, only one systematic review presented high methodological quality. The ROBIS tool showed two systematic reviews with a low risk, and the others had a high risk of bias.
conclusionThe current evidence is based on only one systematic review with high methodological quality and a low risk of bias, while the others exhibited a high risk of bias and low methodological quality. Therefore, the evidence regarding the efficacy of blood concentrates in controlling sequelae following lower third molar extractions is inconclusive.
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.