Open AccessEfficacy of platelet‐rich plasma for non‐transfusion use: Overview of systematic reviews
Author(s) -
Pachito Daniela Vianna,
Latorraca Carolina de Oliveira Cruz,
Riera Rachel
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
international journal of clinical practice
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.756
H-Index - 98
eISSN - 1742-1241
pISSN - 1368-5031
DOI - 10.1111/ijcp.13402
Subject(s) - medicine , cochrane library , platelet rich plasma , medline , evidence based dentistry , systematic review , randomized controlled trial , orthopedic surgery , blood transfusion , traumatology , arthroplasty , evidence based medicine , clinical trial , surgery , dentistry , intensive care medicine , physical therapy , pathology , platelet , alternative medicine , political science , law
Platelet‐rich plasma (PRP) is a blood component therapy with a supraphysiological concentration of platelets derived from allogenic or, more commonly, autologous blood. PRP has been used in different non‐transfusion indications because of its role in the promotion of tissue repair and healing, in fields such as Traumatology, Dermatology and Dentistry. Objective To provide a synthesis of the efficacy of PRP for different clinical situations. Methods Systematic searches were carried out in MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library and LILACS in July 2018 to identify systematic reviews (SRs) of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) focusing on PRP for non‐transfusion use. Two authors independently screened all retrieved references in two stages (titles and abstracts at a first stage and full texts at a second stage). The methodological quality of SRs that met the eligibility criteria was appraised by AMSTAR 2. Conclusions were based on the most recent SRs with highest quality. Results One thousand two hundred and forty references were retrieved. After checking the inclusion criteria, 29 SRs of RCTs related to three different fields (wound care, Orthopedics and Dentistry) were included. The results suggest the benefit of PRP for different clinical situations, such as diabetic wounds, acute lesions of musculoskeletal system, rotator cuff lesions, tendinopathies, knee and hip osteoarthritis, total knee arthroplasty, allogenic bone graft for dental implants and periodontal intrabony defects. Conclusion There is low to moderate quality evidence supporting the efficacy of PRP for specific clinical situations. The low quality of the evidence limits the certainty of these findings. Well‐planned and well‐conducted RCTs are still needed to further assess the efficacy of PRP.