MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3177710349 · doi:10.1159/000517117

Does Autologous Platelet-Rich Plasma Improve Wound Healing and Pain Perception after Cesarean Section in High-Risk Patients?

2021· article· en· W3177710349 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nabih I. Elkhouly, Osama Elkilani, Hend A. Kolaib, Reem M. Elkhouly, Dalia Ibrahim Morsi

Post-publication record

NatureRetraction
ReasonConcerns/Issues about Data;Error in Data;Investigation by Company/Institution;Investigation by Journal/Publisher;Original Data and/or Images not Provided and/or not Available;Upgrade/Update of Prior Notice(s);
Date5/28/2025 0:00
Flagged by OpenAlex?Yes

Source: Retraction Watch, joined by DOI. OpenAlex records retraction as is_retracted, a boolean over a state space with at least four values, so it cannot express an expression of concern, a correction or a reinstatement; it reports them as false, which reads as “fine”.

Bibliographic record

VenueGynecologic and Obstetric Investigation · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPeriodontal Regeneration and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineVisual analogue scaleRandomized controlled trialEcchymosisPlatelet-rich plasmaAnesthesiaSurgeryPlateletInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effect of autologous platelet-rich plasma (PRP) on wound healing and pain perception after cesarean section in high-risk patients. DESIGN: This was a prospective randomized controlled trial. Participants/Materials, Settings, and Methods: This was a randomized controlled trial of 200 patients who came to the outpatient clinic of Menoufia University Hospital for elective cesarean surgery. The women were randomly assigned to 2 equal groups. The intervention group received PRP subcutaneous injection in the wound after surgery; however, the control group received the usual care. Outcome variables included the redness, edema, ecchymosis, discharge, approximation (REEDA) scale, Vancouver scar scale (VSS), and in addition to the visual analog scale (VAS). RESULTS: From April 2018 to July 2020, the PRP group showed a greater reduction in the REEDA score compared to the control group on day 1, day 7, and this was continued till 6 months (1.51 ± 0.90 vs. 2.49 ± 1.12, p < 0.001). Compared with the control group, the PRP group had a significantly greater reduction in the VSS and VAS scores beginning on the seventh day (3.71 ± 0.99 vs. 4.67 ± 1.25, p < 0.001) and (5.06 ± 1.10 vs. 6.02 ± 1.15, p < 0.001), respectively, and continued till 6 months. LIMITATIONS: Pain was not measured by the use of analgesics, and we did not investigate the effects of varying platelet concentrations, centrifuge duration, or speed. CONCLUSIONS: PRP has positive effects on wound healing and pain reduction in high-risk patients undergoing cesarean section in low-resource settings.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.206 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGynecologic and Obstetric InvestigationSame topicPeriodontal Regeneration and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207