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.
This updated Cochrane review found no evidence to suggest that homocysteine-lowering interventions in the form of supplements of vitamins B6, B9 or B12 given alone or in combination should be used for preventing cardiovascular events. Furthermore, there is no evidence suggesting that homocysteine-lowering interventions are associated with an increased risk of cancer.
In this third update of the Cochrane review, there were no differences in effects of homocysteine-lowering interventions in the form of supplements of vitamins B6, B9 or B12 given alone or in combination comparing with placebo on myocardial infarction, death from any cause or adverse events. In terms of stroke, this review found a small difference in effect favouring to homocysteine-lowering interventions in the form of supplements of vitamins B6, B9 or B12 given alone or in combination comparing with placebo.There were uncertain effects of enalapril plus folic acid compared with enalapril on stroke; approximately 143 (95% CI 85 to 428) people would need to be treated for 5.4 years to prevent 1 stroke, this evidence emerged from one mega-trial.Trial sequential analyses showed that additional trials are unlikely to increase the certainty about the findings of this issue regarding homocysteine-lowering interventions versus placebo. There is a need for additional trials comparing homocysteine-lowering interventions combined with antihypertensive medication versus antihypertensive medication, and homocysteine-lowering interventions at high doses versus homocysteine-lowering interventions at low doses. Potential trials should be large and co-operative.
BACKGROUND: Autologous plasma rich in platelets (PRP) is a derived blood product whose application in clinical practice is growing. A systematic review was conducted to evaluate its efficacy and safety.
STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS:A search was performed in electronic databases. Randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) in adult patients were included and assessed for methodologic quality. The main outcomes were "tissue regeneration" and "safety." Relative risks (RRs) and standardized mean differences (SMDs) were calculated to show pooled estimates for these outcomes. When the results heterogeneity was more than 50 percent, a sensitivity analysis was performed. RESULTS: Twenty RCTs were included (11 of oral and maxillofacial surgery, 7 of chronic skin ulcers, and 2 of surgery wounds). Four RCTs evaluated the depth reduction in gingival recession in chronic periodontitis; the SMD was 0.54 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.16 to 0.92) mm, favorable to PRP. Three RCTs evaluated the clinical attachment level in chronic periodontitis; the SMD was 0.33 (95% CI, -0.71 to 1.37) mm. Six RCTs assessed the complete skin epithelialization in wound ulcers; the RR was 1.40 (95% CI, 0.85 to 2.31). Only 6 RCTs reported adverse effects without differences between groups. CONCLUSIONS: PRP improves the gingival recession but not the clinical attachment level in chronic periodontitis. In the complete healing process of chronic skin ulcers, the results are inconclusive. There are little data about PRP safety. There are several methodologic limitations and, consequently, future research should focus on strong and well-designed RCTs that assess the efficacy and safety of PRP.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.