ReviewCureus2025
Platelet-Rich Plasma in Split-Thickness Skin Graft Donor Sites: A Narrative Review of Healing Outcomes and Pain Reduction.
Review in Cureus, 2025. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Split-thickness skin autografts are the most widely used strategy for the treatment of large coverage defects secondary to trauma, burns, oncologic resections, and ulcers. However, donor site management remains a challenge, as it is associated with considerable morbidity due to pain, bleeding, pruritus, and delayed healing, often greater than in the grafted area. In this scenario, platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has gained popularity as an adjuvant therapy, with favorable results in reducing these complications. The objective of this study was to narratively review the scientific literature on the use of PRP in donor sites of split-thickness skin grafts (STSGs), with emphasis on pain control and healing outcomes. A narrative literature review was conducted, selecting key publications indexed in PubMed, Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), and Elsevier. The collected information included mechanisms of action, application techniques, clinical outcomes, and pain reduction. Additionally, institutional experience and certain relevant technical aspects are discussed. PRP accelerates epithelialization, reduces postoperative pain, decreases complications at donor sites, and improves healing quality, thereby promoting faster recovery and lower morbidity. These benefits establish it as a useful and accessible therapeutic option in this clinical setting.
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.