Short Communication

Assessing the reporting of harms in systematic reviews focused on platelet-rich plasma therapy: a cross-sectional analysis

*Author for correspondence:

E-mail Address: shaelyn.ward25@gmail.com

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4127-7562

Office of Medical Student Research, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, OK 74107, USA

Search for more papers by this author

Kade Ezell

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3794-2731

Office of Medical Student Research, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, OK 74107, USA

Search for more papers by this author

Audrey Wise

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2353-7567

Office of Medical Student Research, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, OK 74107, USA

Search for more papers by this author

Morgan Garrett

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5415-2200

Office of Medical Student Research, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, OK 74107, USA

Search for more papers by this author

Brayden Rucker

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4146-2776

Office of Medical Student Research, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, OK 74107, USA

Search for more papers by this author

Drew Lestersmith

Baylor Scott & White All Saints Medical Center, Fort Worth, TX 76104, USA

Search for more papers by this author

Mohammed Emam

Department of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21287, USA

Search for more papers by this author

Matt Vassar

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2859-6152

Office of Medical Student Research, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, OK 74107, USA

Department of Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, OK 74107, USA

Search for more papers by this author

Published Online:21 Jun 2023https://doi.org/10.2217/rme-2023-0058

View article

Abstract

Aim: Our objectives are: to evaluate the completeness of harms reporting in systematic reviews (SRs) on platelet-rich plasma therapy; to assess the overall methodological quality of the SR using AMSTAR-2 tool; to assess harms reporting overlap in primary studies between SRs. Materials & methods: The authors searched five database systems for relevant literature on platelet rich plasma therapy. The authors screened and extracted in masked, duplicate fashion. Results: All SRs reported less than 50% completeness in harms reporting. The most frequently reported item was harms being stated in the abstract or title (26/103, 25.2%). AMSTAR-2 assessed 96 SRs as ‘critically low’, 6 SRs as ‘low’ and 1 ‘moderate’. Conclusion: Our study highlights that reporting of harms should become more standardized and transparent.

Plain language summary

This study looked at how well the negative effects (harms) of platelet-rich plasma therapy are reported in systematic reviews (SRs). The researchers carefully reviewed and extracted data of SRs from different databases. They found that less than 50% of the SRs reported the harms associated with platelet rich plasma therapy. The researchers also used a tool called AMSTAR to assess the value of each of the SRs, and most were found to be ‘critically low’ reviews. In conclusion, this study highlights the importance of platelet rich plasma therapy negative effect reporting by SRs.

Tweetable abstract

Harms of platelet rich plasma therapy must be adequately evaluated and reported to provide patients with the best care possible. Of the 103 included systematic reviews, all SRs reported less than 50% completeness in harms reporting.

Keywords:

Papers of special note have been highlighted as: • of interest

References

1. Foster TE, Puskas BL, Mandelbaum BR, Gerhardt MB, Rodeo SA. Platelet-rich plasma: from basic science to clinical applications. Am. J. Sports Med. 37(11), 2259–2272 (2009).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
2. Dawood AS, Salem HA. Current clinical applications of platelet-rich plasma in various gynecological disorders: an appraisal of theory and practice. Clin. Exp. Reprod. Med. 45(2), 67–74 (2018).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
3. Lhee SH, Kim JW, Jeon JB, Lee DY. Comparison of laboratory data among the six different prp separation systems using 144 samples. Br. J. Sports Med. 50(22), e4–e4 (2016).
Google Scholar
4. Degen RM, Bernard JA, Oliver KS, Dines JS. Commercial separation systems designed for preparation of platelet-rich plasma yield differences in cellular composition. HSS J. 13(1), 75–80 (2017).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
5. Everts P, Onishi K, Jayaram P, Lana JF, Mautner K. Platelet-rich plasma: new performance understandings and therapeutic considerations in 2020. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 21(20), 7794 (2020). http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijms21207794
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
6. Jones IA, Togashi RC, Thomas Vangsness C Jr. The economics and regulation of PRP in the evolving field of orthopedic biologics. Curr. Rev. Musculoskelet. Med. 11(4), 558–565 (2018).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
7. Beitzel K, Allen D, Apostolakos J et al. US definitions, current use, and FDA stance on use of platelet-rich plasma in sports medicine. J. Knee Surg. 28(1), 29–34 (2015).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
8. Qureshi R, Mayo-Wilson E, Rittiphairoj T, McAdams-DeMarco M, Guallar E, Li T. Harms in systematic reviews paper 3: given the same data sources, systematic reviews of gabapentin have different results for harms. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 143, 224–241 (2022). • Highlights the Mahady and Quershi tools used in our assessment of harms reporting in systematic reviews (SRs).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
9. Chou R, Helfand M. Challenges in systematic reviews that assess treatment harms. Ann. Intern. Med. 142(12 Pt 2), 1090–1099 (2005).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
10. Chan A-W, Hróbjartsson A, Haahr MT, Gøtzsche PC, Altman DG. Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 291(20), 2457–2465 (2004).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
11. Chan A-W, Krleza-Jerić K, Schmid I, Altman DG. Outcome reporting bias in randomized trials funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Can. Med. Assoc. J. 171(7), 735–740 (2004).
Google Scholar
12. Mahady SE, Schlub T, Bero L et al. Side effects are incompletely reported among systematic reviews in gastroenterology. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 68(2), 144–153 (2015).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
13. Burns PB, Rohrich RJ, Chung KC. The levels of evidence and their role in evidence-based medicine. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 128(1), 305 (2011).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
14. Hassan Murad M, Asi N, Alsawas M, Alahdab F. New evidence pyramid. BMJ Evid. Based Med. 21(4), 125–127 (2016).
Google Scholar
15. Zorzela L, Loke YK, Ioannidis JP et al. PRISMA harms checklist: improving harms reporting in systematic reviews. Br. Med. J. 352, i2229 (2016). www.bmj.com/content/352/bmj.i157
Google Scholar
16. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Brit. Med. J. 339, b2535 (2009).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
17. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Brit. Med. J. 372, n71 (2021).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
18. Wise A, Kee MD, Rucker B et al. Open Science Framework. https://osf.io/2c3vr/
Google Scholar
19. Offered by John Hopkins University. Introduction to systematic review and meta-analysis. Coursera. (2023). www.coursera.org/learn/systematic-review
Google Scholar
20. Spotlight on methods and tools: AMSTAR 2. www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdbIFo7FCVE
Google Scholar
21. Detweiler BN, Kollmorgen LE, Umberham BA, Hedin RJ, Vassar BM. Risk of bias and methodological appraisal practices in systematic reviews published in anaesthetic journals: a meta-epidemiological study. Anaesthesia 71(8), 955–968 (2016).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
22. Jacobsen SM, Douglas A, Smith CA et al. Methodological quality of systematic reviews comprising clinical practice guidelines for cardiovascular risk assessment and management for noncardiac surgery. Br. J. Anaesth. 127(6), 905–916 (2021).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
23. Scott J, Howard B, Sinnett P et al. Variable methodological quality and use found in systematic reviews referenced in STEMI clinical practice guidelines. Am. J. Emerg. Med. 35(12), 1828–1835 (2017).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
24. Aran G, Hicks C, Demand A et al. Treating schizophrenia: the quality of evidence behind treatment recommendations and how it can improve. BMJ Evid Based Med. 25(4), 138–142 (2020).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
25. Qureshi R, Mayo-Wilson E, Li T. Summaries of harms in systematic reviews are unreliable Paper 1: an introduction to research on harms. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 143, 186–196 (2021). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.10.023 • Highlights the Mahady and Quershi tools used in our assessment of harms reporting in SRs.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
26. Qureshi R, Mayo-Wilson E, Rittiphairoj T, McAdams-DeMarco M, Guallar E, Li T. Summaries of harms in systematic reviews are unreliable (Part 1 of 2): methods used to assess harms are neglected in systematic reviews of gabapentin. 1–23 (2021). http://dx.doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/7g4ez • Highlights the Mahady and Quershi tools used in our assessment of harms reporting in SRs.
Google Scholar
27. Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. Br. Med. J. 358, j4008 (2017). • Provides a reference to the development and formation of the AMSTAR tool used in our study.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
28. Bruyère Research Institute. AMSTAR - assessing the methodological quality of systematic reviews. (2021). https://amstar.ca/ • Provides a source for the AMSTAR tool that was used to critically appraise the SRs analyzed.
Google Scholar
29. Hennessy EA, Johnson BT. Examining overlap of included studies in meta-reviews: guidance for using the corrected covered area index. Res. Synth. Methods 11(1), 134–145 (2020).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
30. McIntosh HM, Woolacott NF, Bagnall A-M. Assessing harmful effects in systematic reviews. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 4, 19 (2004).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
31. Papanikolaou PN, Ioannidis JPA. Availability of large-scale evidence on specific harms from systematic reviews of randomized trials. Am. J. Med. 117(8), 582–589 (2004).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
32. Hadi MA, McHugh GA, Conaghan PG. Quality of reporting of harms in randomised controlled trials of pharmacological interventions for rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review. Evid. Based. Med. 22(5), 170–177 (2017).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
33. Saini P, Loke YK, Gamble C, Altman DG, Williamson PR, Kirkham JJ. Selective reporting bias of harm outcomes within studies: findings from a cohort of systematic reviews. Br. Med. J. 349, g6501 (2014).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
34. Kirkham JJ, Dwan KM, Altman DG et al. The impact of outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials on a cohort of systematic reviews. Br. Med. J. 340, c365 (2010).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
35. Alkhatib N, Salameh M, Ahmed AF et al. Platelet-rich plasma versus corticosteroids in the treatment of chronic plantar fasciitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective comparative studies. J. Foot Ankle Surg. 59(3), 546–552 (2020).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
36. Uğurlar M, Sönmez MM, Uğurlar ÖY, Adıyeke L, Yıldırım H, Eren OT. Effectiveness of four different treatment modalities in the treatment of chronic plantar fasciitis during a 36-month follow-up period: a randomized controlled trial. J. Foot Ankle Surg. 57(5), 913–918 (2018).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
37. Omar AS, Ibrahim ME, Ahmed AS, Said M. Local injection of autologous platelet rich plasma and corticosteroid in treatment of lateral epicondylitis and plantar fasciitis: randomized clinical trial. Egypt. Rheumatol. 34(2), 43–49 (2012). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejr.2011.12.001
Google Scholar
38. Shetty SH, Dhond A, Arora M, Deore S. Platelet-rich plasma has better long-term results than corticosteroids or placebo for chronic plantar fasciitis: randomized control trial. J. Foot Ankle Surg. 58(1), 42–46 (2019).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
39. Deng T, Cheng F, Guo S, Cheng H, Wu J. Application of PRP in Chloasma: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Comput. Intell. Neurosci. 2022, 1–14 (2022).
Google Scholar
40. Hodkinson A, Kirkham JJ, Tudur-Smith C, Gamble C. Reporting of harms data in RCTs: a systematic review of empirical assessments against the CONSORT harms extension. BMJ Open 3(9), e003436 (2013).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
41. Ioannidis JP, Evans SJ, Gøtzsche PC et al. Better reporting of harms in randomized trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement. Ann. Intern. Med. 141(10), 781–788 (2004). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15545678/
MedlineGoogle Scholar
42. Zhang JY, Fabricant PD, Ishmael CR, Wang JC, Petrigliano FA, Jones KJ. Utilization of platelet-rich plasma for musculoskeletal injuries: an analysis of current treatment trends in the United States. Orthop. J. Sports Med. 4(12), 1–7 (2016).
CASGoogle Scholar
43. Le ADK, Enweze L, DeBaun MR, Dragoo JL. Current clinical recommendations for use of platelet-rich plasma. Curr. Rev. Musculoskelet. Med. 11(4), 624–634 (2018).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
44. Gupta S, Paliczak A, Delgado D. Evidence-based indications of platelet-rich plasma therapy. Expert Rev. Hematol. 14(1), 97–108 (2021).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
45. Khan AM. Guidelines for standardizing and increasing the transparency in the reporting of biomedical research. J. Thorac. Dis. 9(8), 2697–2702 (2017).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
46. Mohamed Shaffril HA, Samsuddin SF, Abu Samah A. The ABC of systematic literature review: the basic methodological guidance for beginners. Qual. Quant. 55(4), 1319–1346 (2021).
Google Scholar
47. Phillips R, Hazell L, Sauzet O, Cornelius V. Analysis and reporting of adverse events in randomised controlled trials: a review. BMJ Open 9(2), e024537 (2019). www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6398660/
MedlineGoogle Scholar
48. Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC et al. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. Brit. Med. J. 343, d5928 (2011). www.bmj.com/content/343/bmj.d5928
MedlineGoogle Scholar

Vol. 18, No. 7

Metrics

Downloaded 26 times

History

Received 4 April 2023

Accepted 18 May 2023

Published online 21 June 2023

Published in print July 2023

Information

Keywords

Author contributions

S Ward: Collected data and assisted in scientific writing, guarantor. K Ezell: Collected data and assisted in scientific writing. A Wise, M Garrett and B Rucker: Assisted in study design creation and implementation. D Lester and M Emam: provided relevant clinical insight. M Vassar: Created study design, critically evaluated scientific writing, served as chief scientific advisor.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to C Kennedy who assisted in the development of our search strategy and to the OSU medical library for their procurement of relevant literature. We are grateful for the CCA guidance and code provided by R Qureshi.

Financial & competing interests disclosure

M Vassar reports receipt of funding from the National Institute on Drug Abuse, the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, the US Office of Research Integrity, Oklahoma Center for Advancement of Science and Technology, and internal grants from Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences – all outside of the present work. All other authors have nothing to report. The authors have no other relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript apart from those disclosed.

No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.

PDF download