ReviewRegenerative therapy2025
Efficacy of mesenchymal stem cells and platelet-rich plasma therapies on wound healing: A Systematic Review and meta-analysis.
Review in Regenerative therapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Intradermal Application of Allogenic Wharton's Jelly Mesenchymal Stem Cells for Chronic Post-Thoracotomy Wound in an Elderly Patient After Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: Clinical Case with Brief Literature Review.Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Platelet-Rich Plasma (PRP) and Recombinant Growth Factor Therapies in Cutaneous Wound Healing: Mechanisms, Clinical Applications, and Future Directions.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Wound healing is a complex physiological process essential for maintaining tissue integrity and function. This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the efficacy of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) and platelet-rich plasma (PRP), and their combination in enhancing wound healing. Methods: We conducted a systematic search of PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases for studies published from 2010 to 2024. The inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials involving human subjects treated with MSCs, PRP, or both. The primary outcomes assessed were wound closure rates and mean healing times, while secondary outcomes included wound size reduction, pain management, infection rates, recurrence, adverse events, and cost-effectiveness. Data were pooled using STATA software version 17.0, with standardized mean differences (SMDs) and risk differences (RDs) calculated. Results: A total of 34 studies involving 2458 patients were included. PRP and MSCs significantly reduced wound healing time (PRP: SMD = -1.08, 95 % CI: 1.75 to -0.42, p < 0.001; MSCs: SMD = -1.7195 %, CI: 2.44 to -0.99, p < 0.001). MSCs positively impacted new vessel development (overall SMD = 0.55, 95 % CI: 0.39 to 0.71, p < 0.001). PRP-treated groups had higher ulcer healing rates (72.4 % vs 52.5 %, RD = 0.21, 95 % CI: 0.16 to 0.26, p < 0.001). Infection rates showed no statistically significant difference between PRP and control groups (DR = -0.11, 95 % CI: 0.34 to 0.12, p > 0.05), while rest pain scores were significantly lower in PRP-treated patients (SMD = -4.69, 95 % CI: 0.87 to -0.62, p = 0.02). PRP-treated ulcers had lower recurrence rates (RD = -0.14, 95 % CI: 0.75 to 0.97, p = 0.01). Conclusions: The findings from this meta-analysis underscore the promising potential of PRP and MSCs as effective therapeutic strategies for wound healing when used individually.
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.