ArticleRegenerative therapy2026
Microbial contamination risks and clinical safety in platelet-rich plasma therapy and evaluation of rapid microbial detection methods.
Article in Regenerative therapy, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is widely used for pain relief, wound healing, and so on. However, recent reports have documented cases of infections occurring after PRP therapy. In this study, we aimed to examine potential microbial contamination risks associated with PRP therapy and evaluate rapid microbial detection methods suitable for clinical use. Methods: We assessed the risk of microbial contamination during blood collection, PRP preparation, and sterility testing. To evaluate suitable detection methods, we compared the microbial detection sensitivities of flow cytometry (FCM) and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for identifying microbial contamination in PRP. For this purpose, PRP samples were inoculated with Results: Following skin disinfection, microbial colonies were detected at the venipuncture site in six out of ten patients. Environmental monitoring identified airborne microbial colonies in two out of three anonymous PRP preparation facilities. Sterility tests revealed negative results for all 85 residual PRP and 15 platelet-poor plasma (PPP) cases. FCM sensitivity for microbial detection in PRP was effective at a concentration of 10 Conclusion: The risks of microbial contamination were identified during both venipuncture and PRP production. To reduce these risks, it may be necessary to improve disinfection protocols for venipuncture sites and blood collection methods, implementing appropriate facility-specific measures. Although requiring further detection sensitivity improvements, FCM is a promising method for detecting viable bacteria in PRP. Given that microbial contamination cannot be completely eliminated, clinicians providing PRP therapy should remain alert to the potential for postoperative infections and ensure appropriate follow-up protocols are established.
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.