Autologous platelet‐rich plasma vs placebo or usual care: Adverse events
- Population
- adults with chronic wounds
- Intervention
- Autologous platelet‐rich plasma
- Comparison
- placebo or usual care
- Outcome
- Adverse events
It is very uncertain whether autologous platelet‐rich plasma changes adverse events compared with standard care with/without placebo (very low certainty).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Autologous platelet‐rich plasma vs standard care with/without placebo Adverse events · adults with chronic wounds It is very uncertain whether autologous platelet‐rich plasma changes adverse events compared with standard care with/without placebo (very low certainty). Autologous platelet‐rich plasma for treating chronic wounds (2016) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 1.05 [0.29, 3.88] | 3 studies · 102 participants | Very low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Autologous platelet‐rich plasma for treating chronic wounds 2016 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | Not extracted | Not assessed |
Related questions
The same intervention and outcome, asked in another population or against another comparator.
- Autologous platelet‐rich plasma vs placebo or no treatment · Adults (>18 years) having permanent tooth extraction (predominantly mandibular third… · 1 review
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.