Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery· 2017Q1
A Call for Standardization in Platelet-Rich Plasma Preparation Protocols and Composition Reporting
- 487citations
- Q1SCImago
- 2017year
Short summary
A systematic review of 105 orthopaedic clinical trials found only 10% reported PRP preparation protocols clearly enough for replication, and only 16% provided quantitative composition data, hindering understanding and comparison of PRP's effects.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Key points
- Only 10% of 105 reviewed orthopaedic PRP trials provided clear, reproducible preparation protocols.
- Just 16% of studies reported quantitative metrics on the final PRP product's composition.
- Heterogeneous processing methods and ambiguous classifications impede understanding of PRP's biological properties.
- Standardized reporting of PRP preparation and composition is crucial for reproducibility and comparative analysis.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is a blood-derived preparation whose use has grown exponentially in orthopaedic practice. However, there remains an unclear understanding of the biological properties and effects of PRP on musculoskeletal healing. Heterogeneous processing methods, unstandardized nomenclature, and ambiguous classifications make comparison among studies challenging. A comprehensive assessment of orthopaedic clinical PRP trials is key to unraveling the biological complexity of PRP, while improving standardized communication. Toward this goal, we performed a systematic review of the PRP preparation protocols and PRP composition utilized in clinical trials for the treatment of musculoskeletal diseases. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed from 2006 to 2016. Inclusion criteria were human clinical trials, English-language literature, and manuscripts that reported on the use of PRP in musculoskeletal/orthopaedic conditions. Basic-science articles, editorials, surveys, special topics, letters to the editor, personal correspondence, and nonorthopaedic applications (including cosmetic use or dental application studies) were excluded. RESULTS: A total of 105 studies (in 104 articles) met the inclusion criteria for analysis. Of these studies, only 11 (10%) provided comprehensive reporting that included a clear description of the preparation protocol that could be used by subsequent investigators to repeat the method. Only 17 studies (16%) provided quantitative metrics on the composition of the final PRP product. CONCLUSIONS: Reporting of PRP preparation protocols in clinical studies is highly inconsistent, and the majority of studies did not provide sufficient information to allow the protocol to be reproduced. Furthermore, the current reporting of PRP preparation and composition does not enable comparison of the PRP products being delivered to patients. A detailed, precise, and stepwise description of the PRP preparation protocol is required to allow comparison among studies and provide reproducibility.
The authors' abstract, as published at the source. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, 2017 · DOI ↗
Continue with a free account
Ask the paper: 3 free questions a day about this paper; save it, get its citation, new summaries every day for your field. Takeaways are Premium.
Continue free on the webSign in with Google or Apple; no card needed. You come back to this paper.
On your phone:
Field: Urology
UrologyMedicine