富血小板血浆、自体血清和人工泪液治疗干眼病的比较疗效:系统综述和荟萃分析

IF 3.9 3区 工程技术 Q2 BIOCHEMISTRY & MOLECULAR BIOLOGY
Alexandra Laura Mederle, Diana Andrei, Laura Andreea Ghenciu, Emil Robert Stoicescu, Roxana Iacob, Ovidiu Alin Haţegan
{"title":"富血小板血浆、自体血清和人工泪液治疗干眼病的比较疗效:系统综述和荟萃分析","authors":"Alexandra Laura Mederle, Diana Andrei, Laura Andreea Ghenciu, Emil Robert Stoicescu, Roxana Iacob, Ovidiu Alin Haţegan","doi":"10.3390/biomedicines13092316","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background/Objectives</b>: Dry eye disease (DED) is a prevalent, complex disorder with a major impact on patients' quality of life. While artificial tears (AT) are still the first-line treatment, their effectiveness is often limited in moderate-to-severe cases. Autologous serum (AS) and platelet-rich plasma (PRP) are now recognized as viable biologic treatments due to their regenerative and anti-inflammatory characteristics. This systematic review and meta-analysis sought to assess and compare the clinical efficacy of PRP, AS, and AT in the treatment of DED, with a focus on comparative studies. <b>Methods</b>: A comprehensive search of PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar was conducted until June 2025 for studies directly comparing PRP, AS, and AT. Eligible trials included patients with DED who reported results such as the Schirmer test, tear break-up time (TBUT), and Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI). The risk of bias was calculated using ROB 2 for randomized trials and ROBINS-I for non-randomized studies. Meta-analyses were carried out using standardized mean differences (SMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). <b>Results</b>: Seventeen studies were included in the systematic review. Both PRP and AS demonstrated greater improvements in OSDI, TBUT, and Schirmer test scores compared to AT. PRP showed a trend toward better outcomes than AS, especially in studies using injectable PRP. However, substantial heterogeneity and methodological variability were noted. <b>Conclusions</b>: Comparative research suggests that PRP and AS are more effective than AT in treating DED. Direct comparisons of PRP and AS yield varied results, with the route of delivery impacting outcomes. Given the heterogeneity of current protocols, further standardized, long-term trials are required to confirm the optimal delivery method and ensure safety.</p>","PeriodicalId":8937,"journal":{"name":"Biomedicines","volume":"13 9","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12467125/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative Efficacy of Platelet-Rich Plasma, Autologous Serum, and Artificial Tears in Dry Eye Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Alexandra Laura Mederle, Diana Andrei, Laura Andreea Ghenciu, Emil Robert Stoicescu, Roxana Iacob, Ovidiu Alin Haţegan\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/biomedicines13092316\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Background/Objectives</b>: Dry eye disease (DED) is a prevalent, complex disorder with a major impact on patients' quality of life. While artificial tears (AT) are still the first-line treatment, their effectiveness is often limited in moderate-to-severe cases. Autologous serum (AS) and platelet-rich plasma (PRP) are now recognized as viable biologic treatments due to their regenerative and anti-inflammatory characteristics. This systematic review and meta-analysis sought to assess and compare the clinical efficacy of PRP, AS, and AT in the treatment of DED, with a focus on comparative studies. <b>Methods</b>: A comprehensive search of PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar was conducted until June 2025 for studies directly comparing PRP, AS, and AT. Eligible trials included patients with DED who reported results such as the Schirmer test, tear break-up time (TBUT), and Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI). The risk of bias was calculated using ROB 2 for randomized trials and ROBINS-I for non-randomized studies. Meta-analyses were carried out using standardized mean differences (SMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). <b>Results</b>: Seventeen studies were included in the systematic review. Both PRP and AS demonstrated greater improvements in OSDI, TBUT, and Schirmer test scores compared to AT. PRP showed a trend toward better outcomes than AS, especially in studies using injectable PRP. However, substantial heterogeneity and methodological variability were noted. <b>Conclusions</b>: Comparative research suggests that PRP and AS are more effective than AT in treating DED. Direct comparisons of PRP and AS yield varied results, with the route of delivery impacting outcomes. Given the heterogeneity of current protocols, further standardized, long-term trials are required to confirm the optimal delivery method and ensure safety.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8937,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Biomedicines\",\"volume\":\"13 9\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12467125/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Biomedicines\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines13092316\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"工程技术\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"BIOCHEMISTRY & MOLECULAR BIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Biomedicines","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines13092316","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BIOCHEMISTRY & MOLECULAR BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景/目的:干眼病(DED)是一种普遍、复杂的疾病,对患者的生活质量有重大影响。虽然人工泪液(AT)仍然是一线治疗方法,但其在中重度病例中的效果往往有限。自体血清(AS)和富血小板血浆(PRP)由于其再生和抗炎特性而被认为是可行的生物治疗方法。本系统综述和荟萃分析旨在评估和比较PRP、AS和AT治疗DED的临床疗效,重点是比较研究。方法:综合检索PubMed, Scopus和谷歌Scholar,直到2025年6月,直接比较PRP, AS和AT的研究。符合条件的试验包括报告了Schirmer试验、泪液破裂时间(TBUT)和眼表疾病指数(OSDI)等结果的DED患者。随机试验使用rob2,非随机研究使用robins - 1计算偏倚风险。采用标准化平均差异(SMDs)和95%置信区间(ci)进行meta分析。结果:17项研究被纳入系统评价。与AT相比,PRP和AS在OSDI、TBUT和Schirmer测试成绩方面都表现出更大的改善。PRP表现出比AS更好的结果趋势,特别是在使用注射PRP的研究中。然而,注意到实质性的异质性和方法的可变性。结论:比较研究表明PRP和AS治疗DED的效果优于AT。PRP和AS的直接比较产生了不同的结果,递送途径影响结果。鉴于目前方案的异质性,需要进一步标准化的长期试验来确定最佳的给药方法并确保安全性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Comparative Efficacy of Platelet-Rich Plasma, Autologous Serum, and Artificial Tears in Dry Eye Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Comparative Efficacy of Platelet-Rich Plasma, Autologous Serum, and Artificial Tears in Dry Eye Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Comparative Efficacy of Platelet-Rich Plasma, Autologous Serum, and Artificial Tears in Dry Eye Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Comparative Efficacy of Platelet-Rich Plasma, Autologous Serum, and Artificial Tears in Dry Eye Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background/Objectives: Dry eye disease (DED) is a prevalent, complex disorder with a major impact on patients' quality of life. While artificial tears (AT) are still the first-line treatment, their effectiveness is often limited in moderate-to-severe cases. Autologous serum (AS) and platelet-rich plasma (PRP) are now recognized as viable biologic treatments due to their regenerative and anti-inflammatory characteristics. This systematic review and meta-analysis sought to assess and compare the clinical efficacy of PRP, AS, and AT in the treatment of DED, with a focus on comparative studies. Methods: A comprehensive search of PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar was conducted until June 2025 for studies directly comparing PRP, AS, and AT. Eligible trials included patients with DED who reported results such as the Schirmer test, tear break-up time (TBUT), and Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI). The risk of bias was calculated using ROB 2 for randomized trials and ROBINS-I for non-randomized studies. Meta-analyses were carried out using standardized mean differences (SMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: Seventeen studies were included in the systematic review. Both PRP and AS demonstrated greater improvements in OSDI, TBUT, and Schirmer test scores compared to AT. PRP showed a trend toward better outcomes than AS, especially in studies using injectable PRP. However, substantial heterogeneity and methodological variability were noted. Conclusions: Comparative research suggests that PRP and AS are more effective than AT in treating DED. Direct comparisons of PRP and AS yield varied results, with the route of delivery impacting outcomes. Given the heterogeneity of current protocols, further standardized, long-term trials are required to confirm the optimal delivery method and ensure safety.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Biomedicines
Biomedicines Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology-General Biochemistry,Genetics and Molecular Biology
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
8.50%
发文量
2823
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊介绍: Biomedicines (ISSN 2227-9059; CODEN: BIOMID) is an international, scientific, open access journal on biomedicines published quarterly online by MDPI.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信