Efficacy of mesenchymal stem cells and platelet-rich plasma therapies on wound healing: A Systematic Review and meta-analysis

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)

Background Wound healing is a complex physiological process essential for maintaining tissue integrity and function. This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the efficacy of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) and platelet-rich plasma (PRP), and their combination in enhancing wound healing. Methods We conducted a systematic search of PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases for studies published from 2010 to 2024. The inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials involving human subjects treated with MSCs, PRP, or both. The primary outcomes assessed were wound closure rates and mean healing times, while secondary outcomes included wound size reduction, pain management, infection rates, recurrence, adverse events, and cost-effectiveness. Data were pooled using STATA software version 17.0, with standardized mean differences (SMDs) and risk differences (RDs) calculated. Results A total of 34 studies involving 2458 patients were included. PRP and MSCs significantly reduced wound healing time (PRP: SMD = -1.08, 95 % CI: 1.75 to -0.42, p 0.05), while rest pain scores were significantly lower in PRP-treated patients (SMD = -4.69, 95 % CI: 0.87 to -0.62, p = 0.02). PRP-treated ulcers had lower recurrence rates (RD = -0.14, 95 % CI: 0.75 to 0.97, p = 0.01). Conclusions The findings from this meta-analysis underscore the promising potential of PRP an

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.