Browse the corpus
Walk the evidence base by book and chapter — the raw source passages that ground Ask, Differential, and the rest.
1 passage
BACKGROUND: Neuropathic pain (NP) presents a significant actual public health challenge. Traditional treatments primarily involve medications, but these approaches frequently yield unsatisfactory results, highlighting the need to explore alternative therapies, such as platelet-rich plasma (PRP), an autologous plasma derivative enriched with platelets. OBJECTIVE: This article aims to systematically review the literature and provide an updated assessment of the efficacy and safety of PRP treatment for NP. METHODS: Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we searched databases, including Web of Science, Embase, PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library. We assessed bias risk using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool (RoB2). RESULTS: Among 1230 studies identified, 12 randomized trials meeting eligibility criteria were included. Due to substantial heterogeneity, pairwise meta-analysis and intervention ranking were found to be unfeasible. Most trials suggest PRP is effective in relieving NP, with no reported serious complications or significant PRP-related adverse effects. However, these findings were compromised by methodological heterogeneity and study inconsistency. CONCLUSION: PRP has shown to be promising as a safe therapeutic option for managing NP. Future studies should prioritize improved rigor and reproducibility for more stringent conclusions.