Table 1.
Summary Table of the discussed meta-analyses
| Study first author | Reference number | Year of publication | Type of study | Types of studies analyzed | Case definition | Findings |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Qu et al. | [26] | 2021 | Meta-analysis | 20 randomized controlled trials and 5 observational studies | Lower-extremity diabetic ulcers, lower-extremity venous ulcers, and pressure ulcers | Significantly increased wound closure in lower-extremity diabetic ulcers (RR 1.20, 95% CI 1.09–1.32); insufficient strength of evidence for lower-extremity venous ulcers and pressure ulcers |
| Zheng et al. | [27] | 2022 | Meta-analysis | 2 double-blind randomized controlled trials, 1 randomized control trial, 5 prospective studies, and 5 retrospective studies | Burn wounds with or without grafts; 6 PRP treatments (3 topically applied on the wound; 3 injected into the wound), 5 autologous PRP gel applied on the wound. 1 platelet-rich fibrin sprayed on the wound, and 1 fibrin glue applied on the wound | Significant increase in healing rate (MD: 12.69%, 95% CI 9.08, 16.31; p < 0.00001; OR: 2.63, 95% CI 1.37, 5.08; p = 0.004) and decrease in healing time (MD: − 4.02 days, 95% CI − 5.23, − 2.81; p < 0.00001) |
| Moraes et al. | [36] | 2014 | Scoping review | 19 small single-center trials (17 randomized controlled trials and 2 quasi-randomized studies) | 6 trials—rotator cuff tear arthroscopic surgery; 1 trial—shoulder impingement syndrome surgery; 3 trials—elbow epicondylitis; 4 trials—ACL reconstruction; 2 trials—ACL donor graft site application; 1 trial—patellar tendinopathy; 1 trial—Achilles tendinopathy; 1 trial—Achilles rupture surgical repair | No significant differences in overall effect between both PRP and control for short-term (SMD 0.26; 95% CI − 0.19 to 0.71; p value 0.26; I2 = 51%; 162 participants; positive values favoring PRP), medium (SMD − 0.09, 95% CI − 0.56 to 0.39; p value 0.72; I2 = 50%; 151 participants), and long-term function (SMD 0.25, 95% CI − 0.07 to 0.57; p value 0.12; I2 = 66%; 484 participants) |
| Grassi et al. | [37] | 2018 | Meta-analysis | 6 randomized controlled trials | Acute muscle injury (3 studies exclusively hamstring injury; 3 studies that include hamstring, rectus femoris, quadriceps, gastrocnemius, thigh, foot and ankle, and shoulder) | The significant mean difference in return to sport favoring PRP (MD − 7.17, 95% CI − 12.26 to − 2.08, p < 0.00001; 6 trials), while no significant differences in risk of reinjury, complications, pain, strength, ROM/Flexibility, functional scores, and imaging were observed |
| Seow et al. | [38] | 2020 | Meta-analysis | 10 clinical studies | Hamstring injury (2 studies comparing PRP and control, 3 studies comparing PRP and PT, 2 studies comparing PRP + PT and PT alone, 1 study comparing PRP + PT and whole blood injection, 1 study comparing PRP + PT, PPP + PT, and PT alone, and 1 study comparing PRP + PT and placebo) | Nonsignificant decrease in mean time return to play, favoring PRP (MD − 5.67; 95% CI − 12.62 to 1.28; p = 0.11), and a nonsignificant reduction in reinjury rate in patients receiving PRP + PT versus PT alone (95% CI 0.45–1.71; I2 = 0%; p 0.70) |
| Chen et al. | [39] | 2017 | Meta-analysis | 21 randomized controlled trials | Tendon or ligament injury (8 studies on rotator cuff injury, 2 studies on tendinopathy, 3 studies on ACL injuries, and 8 studies on lateral epicondylitis) | Significantly improved reduction in short-term pain (MD − 0.72; 95% CI − 1.10 to − 0.34; p < 0.01; 17 trials), long-term pain (MD − 0.84; 95% CI − 1.23 to − 0.44; p < 0.01; 14 trials), and overall pain (MD, − 0.56; 95% CI − 0.76 to − 0.37; p < 0.01; 21 trials) in patients treated with PRP |
| Han et al. | [40] | 2019 | Meta-analysis | 13 randomized controlled trials | Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (6 studies on single-row repair; 6 studies on double-row repair; 1 study on both single-row and double-row repair) | Significant reduction in retear rate (RR 1.18; 95% CI 1.03–1.18; overall effect p 0.004; 12 trials) and visual analog scale scores (MD − 0.35; 95% CI − 0.57 to − 0.13; overall effect p 0.002; 5 trials) for patients who underwent surgery augmented with PRP, as well as improved Constant shoulder score (MD 2.31; 95% CI 1.02–3.61; overall effect p 0.0005; 9 trials), UCLA shoulder scores (MD 0.98; 95% CI 0.27–1.69; overall effect p 0.007; 7 trials); and SST score for patients with PRP (MD 0.43; 95% CI 0.11–0.75; overall effect p 0.008; 4 trials) |
| Kim et al. | [41] | 2021 | Meta-analysis | 4 studies (2 retrospective cohort studies, and 2 randomized controlled trials) | Lateral elbow tendinosis | No significant difference in VAS scores after 2 months (p 0.55; 2 studies), 6 months, (p 0.67; 2 studies), and 1 year (p 0.36; 3 trials), as well as no significant difference in PRTEE scores after 12 weeks (p 0.86; 2 studies), 24 weeks, (p 0.72; 2 studies), and 52 weeks (p 0.66; 2 trials) |
| Li et al. | [42] | 2019 | Meta-analysis | 5 studies | Lateral epicondylitis (2 studies compared PRP and triamcinolone, 1 study comparing PRP and methylprednisolone alone, 1 study comparing PRP and methylprednisolone + lignocaine, and 1 study comparing PRP + lignocaine and methylprednisolone + lignocaine) | Significantly improved mean VAS scores at 24 weeks (MD − 2.61; 95% CI − 5.18 to − 0.04; overall effect p 0.05; 2 trials) and mean DASH scores at 24 weeks, (MD − 7.73; 95% CI − 9.99 to − 5.46; overall effect p < 0.001; 2 trials) for patients receiving PRP treatment |
| Franchini et al. | [50] | 2016 | Meta-analysis | 11 randomized controlled trials | Periodontal intrabony defects | Significantly improved PD (MD − 0.39; 95% CI − 0.80 to 0.02; p < 0.01; 11 trials), CAL gain (MD − 0.57; 95% CI − 0.93 to − 0.20; effect p 0.002; 11 trials). GR gain (MD − 0.46; 95% CI − 0.77 to − 0.15; effect p 0.0035; 9 trials), and BD gain (MD − 0.46; 95% CI − 0.77 to − 0.15; effect p 0.0035; 6 trials) in groups treated with PRP |
RR risk ratio, CI confidence interval, MD mean difference, OR odds ratio, ACL anterior cruciate ligament, SMD standardized mean difference, ROM range of motion, PT physical therapy, UCLA University of California, Los Angeles, VAS visual analog score, PRTEE patient-rated tennis elbow evaluation, DASH disabilities of arm, shoulder and hand score, PD probing depth, CAL clinical attachment level, GR gingival recession, BD bone defect