Fig 1.
Selection of primary studies: PRISMA flow diagram.
Table 1.
Characteristics of the included studies in alphabetical order.
Table 2.
Characteristics of excluded studies in alphabetical order.
Fig 2.
Review author’s judgement obtained by each included study for each type of bias.
Fig 3.
Forest plot: PRP vs control, meta-analysis 1: Reduction of open wound area (negative ES, positioned on the left of the null value: favours control; positive ES, positioned on the right of the null value: favours PRP).
Heterogeneity analysis: Q = 39.35; df = 14; P = 0.000; I2 = 64.42; T2 = 0.14; T = 0.37. (ES: effect size; 95%CI: confidence interval; W: weight; V: variance; SE: standard error; Sig: statistical significance (p-value); N: total sample size; N1: sample size PRP group; N2: sample size control group; Q, I2, T2 and T: indexes of heterogeneity; df: degrees of freedom).
Fig 4.
Sensitivity analysis, meta-analysis 1: Reduction of open wound area.
(ES: effect size; 95%CI: confidence interval; W: weight; V: variance; SE: standard error; Sig: statistical significance (p-value); N: total sample size; N1: sample size PRP group; N2: sample size control group).
Fig 5.
Publication bias analysis, funnel plot, meta-analysis 1: Reduction of open wound area.
Trim and fill analysis: trimmed studies = 0. Overall effect size (observed): ES = 0.40; LL = 0.16; UL = 0.65; P = 0.001; V = 0.02; SE = 0.13. Overall effect size (estimated): ES = 0.40; LL = 0.16; UL = 0.65; P = 0.001; V = 0.02; SE = 0.13. Egger’s linear regression test: intercept = 0.60; t = 0.52; P = 0.611.
Fig 6.
Forest plot: PRP vs control, meta-analysis 2: Healing time (negative ES, positioned on the left of the null value: favours control; positive ES, positioned on the right of the null value: favours PRP).
Heterogeneity analysis: Q = 13.69; df = 3; P = 0.003; I2 = 78.09; T2 = 0.50; T = 0.71. (ES: effect size; 95%CI: confidence interval; W: weight; V: variance; SE: standard error; Sig: statistical significance (p-value); N: total sample size; Q, I2, T2 and T: indexes of heterogeneity; df: degrees of freedom).
Fig 7.
Sensitivity analysis, meta-analysis 2: Healing time.
(ES: effect size; 95%CI: confidence interval; W: weight; V: variance; SE: standard error; Sig: statistical significance (p-value); N: total sample size; N1: sample size PRP group; N2: sample size control group).
Fig 8.
Publication bias analysis, funnel plot, meta-analysis 2: Healing time.
Trim and fill analysis: trimmed studies = 0. Overall effect size (observed): ES = 0.10; LL = -0.68; UL = 0.89; P = 0.795; V = 0.16; SE = 0.40. Overall effect size (estimated): ES = 0.10; LL = -0.68; UL = 0.89; P = 0.795; V = 0.16; SE = 0.40. Egger’s linear regression test: intercept = -21.36; t = -2.66; P = 0.117.
Fig 9.
Forest plot: PRP vs control, meta-analysis 3: Number of healings (negative ES, positioned on the left of the null value: favours control; positive ES, positioned on the right of the null value: favours PRP).
Heterogeneity analysis: Q = 7.59; df = 1; P = 0.006; I2 = 86.82; T2 = 1.68; T = 1.30. (ES: effect size; 95%CI: confidence interval; W: weight; V: variance; SE: standard error; Sig: statistical significance (p-value); N: total sample size; N1: sample size PRP group; N2: sample size control group; Q, I2, T2 and T: indexes of heterogeneity; df: degrees of freedom).
Fig 10.
Forest plot: PRP vs control, meta-analysis 4: Combination of all outcomes (negative ES, positioned on the left of the null value: favours control; positive ES, positioned on the right of the null value: favours PRP).
Heterogeneity analysis: Q = 50.87; df = 17; P = 0.000; I2 = 66.58; T2 = 0.16; T = 0.40. (ES: effect size; 95%CI: confidence interval; W: weight; V: variance; SE: standard error; Sig: statistical significance (p-value); N: total sample size; Q, I2, T2 and T: indexes of heterogeneity; df: degrees of freedom).
Fig 11.
Sensitivity analysis, meta-analysis 4: Combination of all outcomes.
(ES: effect size; 95%CI: confidence interval; W: weight; V: variance; SE: standard error; Sig: statistical significance (p-value); N: total sample size; N1: sample size PRP group; N2: sample size control group).
Fig 12.
Publication bias analysis, funnel plot, meta-analysis 4: Combination of all outcomes.
Trim and fill analysis: trimmed studies = 0. Overall effect size (observed): ES = 0.40; LL = 0.16; UL = 0.64; P = 0.001; V = 0.01; SE = 0.12. Overall effect size (estimated): ES = 0.40; LL = 0.16; UL = 0.64; P = 0.001; V = 0.01; SE = 0.12. Egger’s linear regression test: intercept = 0.63; t = 0.57; P = 0.577.
Table 3.
Assessment of the moderators’ effect on the combined overall outcome.