Best evidence summary for platelet-rich plasma treatment of chronic wounds

Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.

• Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
• Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
• Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
• Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
• Emerging · Emerging topic under active research

Abstract (original English)

Objective To summarize the best evidence for platelet-rich plasma therapy in chronic wounds, providing an evidence-based foundation for standardizing its clinical practice. Methods Guided by the "6S" evidence pyramid model, we systematically searched 12 databases including Cochrane Library and Pubmed, 9 guideline websites including Guidelines International Network (GIN) and National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), and 10 professional websites including World Union of Wound Healing Societies (WUWHS), for relevant evidence from the establishment of the database to May 1, 2025. Two researchers independently conducted quality assessment, evidence extraction, and integration of the included literature. Results A total of 17 articles were included, comprising 3 guidelines, 5 expert consensus statements, and 9 systematic reviews. The evidence was categorized into six key treatment domains: application principles, indications and contraindications, pre-treatment preparations, treatment protocols, efficacy monitoring, and management strategies. 27 individual recommendations were derived from these categories. Conclusion Platelet-rich plasma therapy can be used as an adjunctive treatment for the management of chronic wounds. Clinicians and wound care specialists should thoroughly assess the applicability and timing of platelet-rich plasma, considering the specific cl

Evidence level

Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.