ArticleBrazilian journal of otorhinolaryngology
Experimental comparison of platelet-rich plasma with conventional treatment in rats with acoustic trauma induced hearing loss.
Article in Brazilian journal of otorhinolaryngology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
objectiveThis study aimed to test at an experimental level the contributions of traditional treatments with Platelet Rich Plasma (PRP) to the recovery of hearing in hearing loss due to acoustic trauma.
methodsThirty healthy adult rats were used in the study. Otoacoustic Emission (OAE) measurements were performed before the study. All rats with OAE measurements were exposed to 95 dB pure tone sound at a frequency of 4 kHz for 60-minutes. OAEs of the experimental animals were measured again at the 24th hour and it was determined that acoustic trauma had occurred. The rats were divided into 3 groups of 10, the first group was the control group, the 2nd group was determined as the group in which approximately 0.5 mL of intratympanic PRP was injected for 5 doses with 2 days intervals, and the 3rd group was determined as the group in which approximately 0.5 mL of intratympanic steroid was injected with 2 days intervals. OAE measurements made after 7 and 21 days were evaluated, and the treatments given were compared to the group without treatment.
resultsThe results obtained from day-by-day and frequency-by-frequency measurements of DPOAE were statistically compared to check whether significant results were obtained. It was determined that better results were obtained in rats with acoustic trauma treated with PRP and prednol compared with acoustic trauma who received no treatment, and close treatment efficacy results were found between PRP and prednol groups.
conclusionWhen DPOAE measurements of these three groups at 4 kHz frequency on various days were compared with Group 1, a significant statistical difference was observed in Groups 2 and 3, but no significant difference was found between Groups 2 and 3. It was concluded that PRP is as effective as steroids in the improvement of hearing.
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.