Platelet-rich plasma therapy for chronic cutaneous wounds stratified by etiology: a systematic review of randomized clinical trials
Background Chronic wounds are a worldwide problem. One advanced biological therapy is platelet-rich plasma (PRP). Many studies have demonstrated the efficacy of PRP therapy in chronic wounds of different etiologies, but results are not conclusive. Objective This systematic review intends to identify...
| Autores: | , , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | artículo |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2024 |
| País: | España |
| Recursos: | UVic-UCC |
| Repositorio: | RiUVic. Repositori institucional de la UVic-UCC |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:dspace.uvic.cat:10854/8120 |
| Acesso em linha: | http://hdl.handle.net/10854/8120 https://doi.org/10.1007/s40267-023-01044-7 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palavra-chave: | Ferides cròniques Plasma sanguini Plaquetes sanguínies |
| Resumo: | Background Chronic wounds are a worldwide problem. One advanced biological therapy is platelet-rich plasma (PRP). Many studies have demonstrated the efficacy of PRP therapy in chronic wounds of different etiologies, but results are not conclusive. Objective This systematic review intends to identify high-level clinical trials or randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compare autologous platelet-rich plasma with alternative treatments for chronic cutaneous wounds in humans. Moreover, it investigates whether patients who have received autologous PRP therapy for chronic wound care for diverse etiologies have a better clinical outcome than patients treated with alternative treatments. Methods PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science (WOS), The Cochrane Library, and Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Literature Complete (CINAHL) were searched in May 2021. The search was performed without any restriction. The studies were selected and reviewed by two authors on the basis of predefined inclusion criteria and following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, and a third author was consulted in the event of disagreement. All of the studies included were assessed using the Study Quality Assessment Tool for Controlled Intervention Studies published by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NIH, USA). |
|---|