Diskussion:Thrombozytenreiches Plasma

Achtung, dieser Artikel weist nicht auf den fehlenden Wirksamkeitsnachweis hin!

Der Artikel ist veraltet und suggeriert, dass die Methode gängig sei. Es sind quasi keine Zweifel zur Wirksamkeit enthalten. Leser könnten glauben, dass diese Methode sinvollerweise angewendet werden kann. Es fehlt ein Kapitel wie in der englischen Wikipedia-Version, aus der die folgenden Zeilen kopiert sind:

As of 2016 results of basic science and preclinical trials have not yet been confirmed in large-scale randomized controlled trials. A 2009 systematic review of the scientific literature found there were few randomized controlled trials that adequately evaluated the safety and efficacy of PRP treatments and concluded that PRP was "a promising, but not proven, treatment option for joint, tendon, ligament, and muscle injuries".[27]

In 2009 a pilot study investigating the effects of PRP on 20 male athletes with a mean injury history of 20.7 months of pain due to chronic patellar tendinosis, also known as jumpers knee, found statistically significant improvements in physical function and pain levels. 6 month follow up's after treatment showed participants returned to 90% of pre-injury sports activity levels, and 80% of participants were able to return to sports within 4 months of treatment.[28]

A 2010 Cochrane analysis on PRP use in sinus lifts during dental implant placement found no evidence that PRP offered any benefit.[21]

As of 2011, PRP use for nerve injury and sports medicine has produced "promising" but "inconsistent" results in early trials.[4]

A 2013 review stated more evidence was needed to determine PRP's effectiveness for hair regrowth.[29]

A 2014 Cochrane analysis for PRT use to treat musculoskeletal injuries found very weak (very low quality) evidence for a decrease in pain in the short term, up to three months and no difference in function in the short, medium or long term. There was weak evidence that suggested that harm occurred at comparable, low rates in treated and untreated people.[30]

A 2016 systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled clinical trials for PRP use to augment bone graft found only one study reporting a significant difference in bone augmentation, while four studies found no significant difference.[31]

Since 2004, proponents of PRP therapy have argued that negative clinical results are associated with poor-quality PRP produced by inadequate single spin devices. The fact that most gathering devices capture a percentage of a given thrombocyte count could bias results, because of inter-individual variability in the platelet concentration of human plasma and more would not necessarily be better.[6] The variability in platelet concentrating techniques may alter platelet degranulation characteristics that could affect clinical outcomes.[4] (nicht signierter Beitrag von 212.4.225.4 (Diskussion) 14:39, 21. Feb. 2017 (CET))

Siehe auch Autologes Conditioniertes Plasma

Es liegt evtl. eine Redundanz mit dem Artikel Autologes Conditioniertes Plasma vor. Dies sollte ggf. erwähnt werden.

Thrombozytenreiches Plasma - Thrombozytenkonzentrat

Leider fehlt hier eine Abgrenzung, was genau ist der Unterschied? (nicht signierter Beitrag von 2A02:8388:1704:2880:D35:C197:1A1F:CDAD (Diskussion) 11:16, 4. Apr. 2021 (CEST))