Background

The clinical practice of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) therapy has grown significantly in recent years in multiple medical specialties. However, comparisons of PRP studies across medical fields remain challenging because of inconsistent reporting of protocols and characterization of the PRP being administered. The purpose of this systematic review was to determine the quantity of level I/II studies within each medical specialty and compare the level of study reporting across medical fields.

Methods

The Cochrane Database, PubMed, and EMBASE databases were queried for level I/II clinical studies on PRP injections across all medical specialties. From these studies, data including condition treated, PRP processing and characterization, delivery, control group, and assessed outcomes were collected.

Results

A total of 132 studies met the inclusion and exclusion criteria and involved 28 different conditions across 8 specialties (cardiothoracic surgery, cosmetic, dermatology, musculoskeletal (MSK), neurology, oral maxillofacial surgery, ophthalmology, and plastic surgery). Studies on PRP for MSK injuries made up the majority of the studies (74%), with knee osteoarthritis and tendinopathy being most commonly studied. Of the 132 studies, only 44 (33%) characterized the composition of PRP used, and only 23 (17%) reported the leukocyte component. MSK studies were more likely to use patient-reported outcome measures to assess outcomes, while studies from other specialties were more likely to use clinician- or imaging-based objective outcomes. Overall, 61% of the studies found PRP to be favorable over control treatment, with no difference in favorable reporting between MSK and other medical specialties.

Conclusions

The majority of level I/II clinical studies investigating PRP therapy across all medical specialties have been conducted for MSK injuries with knee osteoarthritis and tendinopathy being the most commonly studied conditions. Inconsistent reporting of PRP composition exists among all studies in medicine. Rigorous reporting in human clinical studies across all medical specialties is crucial for evaluating the effects of PRP and moving towards disease-specific and individualized treatment.

Background

The World Health Organization (WHO) Surgical Safety Checklist has fostered safe practice for 10 years, yet its place in emergency surgery has not been assessed on a global scale. The aim of this study was to evaluate reported checklist use in emergency settings and examine the relationship with perioperative mortality in patients who had emergency laparotomy.

Methods

In two multinational cohort studies, adults undergoing emergency laparotomy were compared with those having elective gastrointestinal surgery. Relationships between reported checklist use and mortality were determined using multivariable logistic regression and bootstrapped simulation.

Results

Of 12 296 patients included from 76 countries, 4843 underwent emergency laparotomy. After adjusting for patient and disease factors, checklist use before emergency laparotomy was more common in countries with a high Human Development Index (HDI) (2455 of 2741, 89·6 per cent) compared with that in countries with a middle (753 of 1242, 60·6 per cent; odds ratio (OR) 0·17, 95 per cent c.i. 0·14 to 0·21, P < 0·001) or low (363 of 860, 42·2 per cent; OR 0·08, 0·07 to 0·10, P < 0·001) HDI. Checklist use was less common in elective surgery than for emergency laparotomy in high-HDI countries (risk difference -9·4 (95 per cent c.i. -11·9 to -6·9) per cent; P < 0·001), but the relationship was reversed in low-HDI countries (+12·1 (+7·0 to +17·3) per cent; P < 0·001). In multivariable models, checklist use was associated with a lower 30-day perioperative mortality (OR 0·60, 0·50 to 0·73; P < 0·001). The greatest absolute benefit was seen for emergency surgery in low- and middle-HDI countries.

Conclusion

Checklist use in emergency laparotomy was associated with a significantly lower perioperative mortality rate. Checklist use in low-HDI countries was half that in high-HDI countries.