Cold Atmospheric Plasma for Promoting Healing and Anti-Infection of Chronic Wounds: a Meta-Analysis.

IF 0.7 4区医学 Q4 MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY

Clinical laboratory Pub Date : 2025-03-01 DOI:10.7754/Clin.Lab.2024.241028

Yuanzhen Li, Lianglan Li, Hong Lin, Wei Li, Jinglin Wan, Haibin Hao, Zhihui Tong, Weiqin Li

{"title":"Cold Atmospheric Plasma for Promoting Healing and Anti-Infection of Chronic Wounds: a Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Yuanzhen Li, Lianglan Li, Hong Lin, Wei Li, Jinglin Wan, Haibin Hao, Zhihui Tong, Weiqin Li","doi":"10.7754/Clin.Lab.2024.241028","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Cold atmospheric plasma (CAP) has shown good clinical efficacy in treating chronic wounds, but its superiority over conventional treatment is still under debate. This meta-analysis systematically analyzed the clinical efficacy of CAP compared to control therapy.Methods: Relevant literature was obtained online according to PRISMA guidelines. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were selected based on reduced bacterial load and wound size or area in chronic wounds as observation outcomes. The data were pooled and analyzed using REVMAN 5.2.Results: Twelve studies were included in the meta-analysis, comprising two on wound bacterial load, four on wound size or area, and six on both wound bacterial load and size. For the reduction in wound size or area, CAP showed a significant superior effect compared to the control group. Out of the five RCTs that evaluated wound size, CAP showed a higher number of wounds reduced (CAP vs. control: OR = 1.75; 95% CI = 1.11 - 2.77; p = 0.02). The percentage of relative reduced wound area was evaluated by five RCTs (CAP vs. control: MD = 43.24%; 95% CI = 24.95% - 61.54%; p < 0.00001). For reduced bacterial load, CAP also showed significantly better efficacy than control, as evaluated in eight RCTs (CAP vs. control: OR = 2.06; 95% CI = 1.16 - 3.68; p = 0.01).Conclusions: A total of 448 patients with chronic wounds were included in all 12 meta-analysis studies, indicating that CAP has better clinical efficacy in treating chronic wounds. These findings provide a valuable reference for the clinical application of CAP.","PeriodicalId":10384,"journal":{"name":"Clinical laboratory","volume":"71 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical laboratory","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7754/Clin.Lab.2024.241028","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Cold atmospheric plasma (CAP) has shown good clinical efficacy in treating chronic wounds, but its superiority over conventional treatment is still under debate. This meta-analysis systematically analyzed the clinical efficacy of CAP compared to control therapy.

Methods: Relevant literature was obtained online according to PRISMA guidelines. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were selected based on reduced bacterial load and wound size or area in chronic wounds as observation outcomes. The data were pooled and analyzed using REVMAN 5.2.

Results: Twelve studies were included in the meta-analysis, comprising two on wound bacterial load, four on wound size or area, and six on both wound bacterial load and size. For the reduction in wound size or area, CAP showed a significant superior effect compared to the control group. Out of the five RCTs that evaluated wound size, CAP showed a higher number of wounds reduced (CAP vs. control: OR = 1.75; 95% CI = 1.11 - 2.77; p = 0.02). The percentage of relative reduced wound area was evaluated by five RCTs (CAP vs. control: MD = 43.24%; 95% CI = 24.95% - 61.54%; p < 0.00001). For reduced bacterial load, CAP also showed significantly better efficacy than control, as evaluated in eight RCTs (CAP vs. control: OR = 2.06; 95% CI = 1.16 - 3.68; p = 0.01).

Conclusions: A total of 448 patients with chronic wounds were included in all 12 meta-analysis studies, indicating that CAP has better clinical efficacy in treating chronic wounds. These findings provide a valuable reference for the clinical application of CAP.

查看原文本刊更多论文

低温大气等离子体促进慢性伤口愈合和抗感染：一项meta分析。

背景：冷常压等离子体（CAP）治疗慢性创伤已显示出良好的临床疗效，但与常规治疗相比其优越性仍存在争议。本荟萃分析系统地分析了CAP与对照治疗的临床疗效。方法：根据PRISMA指南在线获取相关文献。选择随机对照试验（RCTs）作为观察结果，以减少细菌负荷和伤口大小或面积作为观察结果。采用REVMAN 5.2对数据进行汇总分析。结果：meta分析纳入了12项研究，其中2项关于伤口细菌负荷，4项关于伤口大小或面积，6项关于伤口细菌负荷和大小。在减少创面大小或面积方面，CAP组的效果明显优于对照组。在评估伤口大小的5个随机对照试验中，CAP组显示了更多的伤口减少(CAP vs. control: OR = 1.75；95% ci = 1.11 - 2.77；P = 0.02)。通过5个随机对照试验(CAP vs. control: MD = 43.24%；95% ci = 24.95% - 61.54%；P < 0.00001)。8项rct评估结果显示，在降低细菌负荷方面，CAP的疗效也明显优于对照组(CAP与对照组：OR = 2.06；95% ci = 1.16 - 3.68；P = 0.01)。结论：12项meta分析研究共纳入448例慢性创面患者，说明CAP治疗慢性创面有较好的临床疗效。这些发现为CAP的临床应用提供了有价值的参考。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Clinical laboratory 医学-医学实验技术

CiteScore

1.50

自引率

0.00%

发文量

494

审稿时长

3 months

期刊介绍： Clinical Laboratory is an international fully peer-reviewed journal covering all aspects of laboratory medicine and transfusion medicine. In addition to transfusion medicine topics Clinical Laboratory represents submissions concerning tissue transplantation and hematopoietic, cellular and gene therapies. The journal publishes original articles, review articles, posters, short reports, case studies and letters to the editor dealing with 1) the scientific background, implementation and diagnostic significance of laboratory methods employed in hospitals, blood banks and physicians'' offices and with 2) scientific, administrative and clinical aspects of transfusion medicine and 3) in addition to transfusion medicine topics Clinical Laboratory represents submissions concerning tissue transplantation and hematopoietic, cellular and gene therapies.