ReviewCureus2025
Platelet-Rich Plasma for COVID-19-Related Olfactory Dysfunction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Navigating the efficacy, safety and outcome of intranasal platelet-rich plasma for persistent olfactory loss: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Impacts of different treatment methods on patients with COVID-related olfactory dysfunction: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil) · 2026Article
- Platelet-Rich Plasma-Derived Exosome Olfactory Cleft Injection for Treating Traumatic Olfactory Dysfunction.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A notable rise in olfactory dysfunction (OD) prevalence has been observed since the COVID-19 pandemic. COVID-19-related OD is associated with several consequences, especially deteriorated quality of life. Hence, several treatment options have been investigated, with platelet-rich plasma (PRP) showing promising results. A systematic review and meta-analysis summarizing randomized controlled trial (RCT) evidence were retrieved from PubMed, Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science up to June 2025. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 assessment tool. Data were analyzed using Stata MP version 18 (StataCorp LLC, College Station, TX), pooling dichotomous outcomes as relative risks (RRs) and continuous outcomes as standardized mean differences (SMDs), each with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Four RCTs, including 198 participants, were included in our meta-analysis. PRP significantly improved objective olfactory scores (SMD = 1.86, 95% CI (0.14, 3.57), p = 0.03) and subjective olfactory scores (SMD = 0.92, 95% CI (0.32, 1.51), p < 0.001). Additionally, PRP significantly increased the response rate (RR = 1.79, 95% CI (1.14, 2.81), p = 0.01). PRP was generally well-tolerated across the included trials, with no major adverse events reported. Two RCTs showed an overall low risk of bias, one trial showed some concerns, and another showed a high risk of bias. With uncertain evidence, PRP may improve both objective and subjective smell function and clinical outcomes in people with long COVID-related OD. PRP treatment was reported to be safe, with minor, temporary side effects primarily related to the procedure. Although initial results are promising, the small number of RCTs requires a cautious approach to interpretation.
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.