Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesLaboratory StudyEurope PMCOpen access

Research trends on platelet-rich plasma in the treatment of wounds during 2002-2021: A 20-year bibliometric analysis

Lai H., Chen G., Zhang W., Wu G., Xia Z.

Laboratory Study on Diabetic Foot, Chronic Wound, published in Int Wound J (2023) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesEvidence level of this study

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

  • 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
Read the A–D evidence level guide

This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.

Study type
Laboratory Study
Journal
Int Wound J (2023)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
36480439
PMCID
PMC10333001
DOI
10.1111/iwj.14047
Citations
10

Abstract (original English)

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has attracted attention because of its potential to accelerate the wound healing process. However, resources for evaluating research trends in the treatment of wounds with PRP were limited. In this study, we aimed to make a bibliometric analysis of the literature related to PRP in the treatment of wounds and explore the research status, hotspots and frontiers in this field in recent 20 years. Studies about PRP treatment for wounds from 2002 to 2021 were retrieved from the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-E) of Web of Science (WOS) database. Visualisation softwares such as VOSviewer and SCImago Graphica, and CiteSpace were used to analyse the research trends and features. A total of 1748 studies were identified in the SCI-Expanded from 2002 to 2021. The number of publications on PRP in the treatment of wounds has shown an increasing trend, from 6 (in 2002) to 228 (in 2021). The papers published in the United States have led in times cited (14637) and H-index (63). Though Italy was slightly lower than China in the number of publications, the H-index and average cited (47, 28.45) were higher than that of China (38, 27.01). The strongest keyword was "fibrin" (strength = 13.07), and the longest burst duration keyword was "thrombin" (began in 2002 and ended in 2014). The largest 10 co-citation clusters are as follows: endothelial cell proliferation (#0)

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
  • • This is preclinical work; animal or laboratory results cannot be applied to humans.

Evidence level

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

How we grade evidence
HumansCombined Modality TherapyRegenerative MedicineWound HealingBiomedical ResearchBibliometricsPlatelet-Rich Plasma

Browse all related research

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

Related research