ArticleBladder (San Francisco, Calif.)2025
A standardized protocol for modified platelet-rich plasma collection for the treatment of interstitial cystitis/bladder pain syndrome.
Article in Bladder (San Francisco, Calif.), 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.
- From Regenerative Mechanisms to Clinical Practice: Current Status, Controversies, and Future Perspectives of Platelet-Rich Plasma in Urology and Sexual Medicine.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Interstitial cystitis/bladder pain syndrome (IC/BPS) is a chronic and diagnostically challenging condition with limited treatment options and poor prognosis. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is a potential treatment for IC/BPS. Nonetheless, conventional preparation methods are inefficient, necessitating an improved approach. Objective: To design an effective and safe protocol for collecting PRP for intravesical injections for the treatment of IC/BPS. Methods: We evaluated the feasibility of the PRP collection protocol from 17 patients. After venipuncture, blood was processed using a blood cell separator containing saline and anticoagulant. One milliliter of PRP was retained for platelet concentration analysis. Each patient received six PRP injections, and their clinical data were taken before and after the procedure to assess efficacy. Results: The mean platelet enrichment coefficient was 5.11 ± 1.27, the mean flow rate was 33.19 ± 6.77 mL/min, the mean collection volume was 125.13 ± 17.49 mL, and the mean collection time was 73.69 ± 10.17 min. Eleven patients required deep venous catheterization because superficial venipuncture failed. No adverse reactions were observed during collection, and all other blood components were retained. Three patients completed six injections, four received five injections, three received four injections, one received three injections, two received two injections, and four received one injection. After treatment, 12 of 17 patients showed symptom improvement on the Global Response Assessment scale (≥5), and all demonstrated statistically significant improvements in terms of O'Leary-Sant and Visual Analog Scale scores against baseline. One patient, however, developed gross hematuria after the fourth injection. Conclusions: The proposed PRP collection protocol is relatively safe and effective. Preliminary data suggest that intravesical PRP injection is a promising treatment for IC/BPS.
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.