Clinical efficacy of blood derivatives on wound healing: A systematic review and network meta‐analysis

Abstract

This study aims to evaluate the clinical effects of different blood derivatives on wound healing using network meta-analysis. PubMed, Embase, OVID, Web of Science, SCOPUS and Cochrane Central were searched to obtain studies about blood derivatives on wound healing until October 2023. R 4.2.0 and Stata 15.0 softwares were used for data analysis. Forty-four studies comprising 5164 patients were included. The results of network meta-analysis showed that the healing area from high to low was GF + ORCCB, ORCCB, GF, PRF, Unnas paste dressing, APG, PRP injection, PRP, PRP + thrombin gel, PPP, HPL, CT. The healing time from low to high was PRP + thrombin gel, GF, PRP, PC + K, PC, APG, PRF, CT, Silver sulfadiazine ointment. The number of patients cured from high to low was APG, PRP injection, PRP, Aurix, PRF, Leucopatch, HPL, Antimicrobial Ointment Dressing, CT, 60 μg/cm² repifermin, 120 μg/cm² repifermin, AFG, PPP. The order of analgesic effect from high to low was AFG, Aminogam gel, PRF, PRP, Oxidised oil, APG, GF, CT. The order of the number of wound infection cases from low to high is APG, 20 μg/cm² repifermin, 60 μg/cm² repifermin, PRP, LeucoPatch, CT, PPP, Antiseptic ointment dressing. Healing area: GF + ORCCB had the best effect; Healing time: PRP + thrombin gel took the shortest time. The number of cured patients and the reduction of wound infection: APG has the best effect. Analgesic effect: AFG has the best effect. More studies with large sample sizes are needed to confirm the above findings.