ArticlePakistan journal of medical sciences2026
Analysis of platelet rich plasma preparations by routine centrifuge versus two commercially available standardized centrifuges.
Article in Pakistan journal of medical sciences, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background & Objective: Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) therapy is increasingly used in regenerative medicine, orthopedics, and dermatology; however, the lack of standardization in PRP preparation leads to variability in platelet yield and composition. This study aimed to compare the quality and efficiency of PRP prepared using a routine laboratory centrifuge with two commercially available standardized centrifuge systems. Methodology: This comparative cross-sectional study was conducted in the Department of Orthopedics & Traumatology and the Department of Plastic surgery at Indus Hospital & Health Network (IHHN), Karachi, over a period of six months from August, 2025 to January 2026. Non-probability consecutive sampling was employed. Thirty-six PRP samples were prepared using routine single-spin, routine double-spin, and two commercial centrifugation methods. Platelet and leukocyte counts, hemoglobin contamination, and platelet recovery were analyzed using SPSS version 26. Results: Commercial standardized centrifuge systems yielded significantly higher platelet concentrations (mean 835 ± 120 ×10 Conclusion: Commercial standardized centrifuges produce PRP with reliable and greater platelet enrichment. Routine centrifuge, on the other hand, consistently produced poor platelet counts in the entire supernatant fluid and hence the lower one third only should be used preferably by double spin method. Different spin protocols and collection methods need to be evaluated to better document platelet enhancement in routine centrifuge use.
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.