↓ Skip to main content

Autologous platelet-rich plasma for treating chronic wounds

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
6 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
37 tweeters
facebook
4 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
67 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
76 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Autologous platelet-rich plasma for treating chronic wounds
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006899.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maria José Martinez-Zapata, Arturo J Martí-Carvajal, Ivan Solà, José Angel Expósito, Ignasi Bolíbar, Luciano Rodríguez, Joan Garcia, Carlos Zaror

Abstract

Autologous platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is a treatment that contains fibrin and high concentrations of growth factors with the potential to improve the healing of chronic wounds. This is the first update of a review first published in 2012. To determine whether autologous PRP promotes the healing of chronic wounds. In June 2015, for this first update, we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library): Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid EMBASE; and EBSCO CINAHL. We also searched for ongoing and unpublished clinical trials in the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (searched January 2015). We did not impose any restrictions with respect to language, date of publication, or study setting. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared autologous PRP with placebo or alternative treatments for any type of chronic wound in adults. We did not apply any date or language restrictions. We used standard Cochrane methodology, including two reviewers independently selecting studies for inclusion, extracting data, and assessing risk of bias. The search identified one new RCT, making a total of 10 included RCTs (442 participants, 42% women). The median number of participants per RCT was 29 (range 10 to 117). Four RCTs recruited people with a range of chronic wounds; three RCTs recruited people with venous leg ulcers, and three RCTs considered foot ulcers in people with diabetes. The median length of treatment was 12 weeks (range 8 to 40 weeks).It is unclear whether autologous PRP improves the healing of chronic wounds generally compared with standard treatment (with or without placebo) (risk ratio (RR) 1.19, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.95 to 1.50; I(2) = 27%, low quality evidence, 8 RCTs, 391 participants). Autologous PRP may increase the healing of foot ulcers in people with diabetes compared with standard care (with or without placebo) (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.49; I(2) = 0%, low quality evidence, 2 RCTs, 189 participants). It is unclear if autologous PRP affects the healing of venous leg ulcers (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.27; I(2) = 0% ). It is unclear if there is a difference in the risk of adverse events in people treated with PRP or standard care (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.29 to 3.88; I(2) = 0%, low quality evidence from 3 trials, 102 participants). PRP may improve the healing of foot ulcers associated with diabetes, but this conclusion is based on low quality evidence from two small RCTs. It is unclear whether PRP influences the healing of other chronic wounds. The overall quality of evidence of autologous PRP for treating chronic wounds is low. There are very few RCTs evaluating PRP, they are underpowered to detect treatment effects, if they exist, and are generally at high or unclear risk of bias. Well designed and adequately powered clinical trials are needed.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 37 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 76 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 1 1%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 1%
Unknown 74 97%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 1 1%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 1%
Unknown 74 97%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 83. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 February 2019.
All research outputs
#185,634
of 12,996,248 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#452
of 10,438 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,376
of 264,958 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#13
of 181 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,996,248 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,438 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 264,958 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 181 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.