Japanese encephalitis virus (JEV) is a mosquito-borne flavivirus that causes encephalitis and other morbidity in Southeast Asia. Since February 2022, geographically dispersed JEV human, animal and vector detections occurred on the Australian mainland for the first time. This study will determine the prevalence of JEV-specific antibodies in human blood with a focus on populations at high risk of JEV exposure and determine risk factors associated with JEV seropositivity by location, age, occupation and other factors.

Samples are collected using two approaches: from routine blood donors (4153 samples), and active collections targeting high-risk populations (convenience sampling). Consent-based sampling for the latter includes a participant questionnaire on demographic, vaccination and exposure data. Samples are tested for JEV-specific total antibody using a defined epitope-blocking ELISA, and total antibody to Australian endemic flaviviruses Murray Valley encephalitis and Kunjin viruses.

Two analytic approaches will occur: descriptive estimates of seroprevalence and multivariable logistic regression using Bayesian hierarchical models. Descriptive analyses will include unadjusted analysis of raw data with exclusions for JEV-endemic country of birth, travel to JEV-endemic countries, prior JEV-vaccination, and sex-standardised and age-standardised analyses. Multivariable logistic regression will determine which risk factors are associated with JEV seropositivity likely due to recent transmission within Australia and the relative contribution of each factor when accounting for effects within the model.

National Mutual Acceptance ethical approval was obtained from the Sydney Children’s Hospitals Network Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC). Local approvals were sought in each jurisdiction. Ethical approval was also obtained from the Australian Red Cross Lifeblood HREC.

Findings will be communicated to participants and their communities, and human and animal health stakeholders and policy-makers iteratively and after final analyses. Understanding human infection rates will inform procurement and targeted allocation of limited JEV vaccine, and public health strategies and communication campaigns, to at-risk populations.

To summarise evidence on the effectiveness of Platelet-Rich Plasma (PRP) gel and Leucocyte and Platelet Rich Fibrin (L-PRF) gel as agents promoting ulcer healing compared with the standard wound dressing techniques alone.

Systematic review.

Individual patient randomised controlled trials on skin ulcers of all types excluding traumatic lesions.

Intervention group: treatment with topical application of L-PRF gel or PRP gel to the wound surface.

Control group: treatment with standard skin ulcer care using normal saline, normgel or hydrogel dressings.

Medline (Ovid), Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE), Scopus, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and Web of Science and manual search of studies from previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The papers published from 1946 to 2022 with no restriction on geography and language were included. The last date of the search was performed on 29 August 2022.

Independent reviewers identified eligible studies, extracted data, assessed risk of bias using V.2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials tool and assessed certainty of evidence by using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

Time to complete healing, proportion healed at a given time and rate of healing.

Seven studies met the inclusion criteria, five using PRP gel and two using L-PRF gel. One study showed a better proportion of complete healing, three reported reduced meantime to complete healing and five showed improved rate of healing per unit of time in the intervention group. The risk of bias was high across all studies with one exception and the GRADE showed very low certainty of evidence.

The findings show potential for better outcomes in the intervention; however, the evidence remains inconclusive highlighting a large research gap in ulcer treatment and warrant better-designed clinical trials.

CRD42022352418.