Cord Blood Platelet‐Rich Plasma in Cesarean Section Wound Management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Platelet‐rich plasma (PRP) promotes the wound‐healing process and reduces pain. Cord blood platelet‐rich plasma (CB‐PRP), which can be easily collected from the umbilical cord and reapplied to a cesarean section wound, has been proposed to have similar effects as PRP. This paper hypothesizes that CB‐PRB would provide beneficial effects in terms of wound healing and pain reduction in women undergoing cesarean section. This study is a randomized controlled trial involving 52 pregnant women who underwent cesarean sections. Participants were assigned to either the intervention group ( n = 26) or the control group ( n = 26) at the Obstetrics and Gynecology Clinic of Police General Hospital. Cord blood PRP was applied to the subcutaneous layer and the surgical wound immediately following the cesarean section. The efficacy of wound healing was evaluated using the REEDA scale score on days 1 and 3 postoperatively, and the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) was assessed in the 8th week postoperation. The efficacy in reducing pain was measured using a Visual Analog Scale on days 1 and 3 postoperatively. The mean REEDA scale on day 1 (mean ± SD: 1.5 ± 0.2561.5 ± 0.256 in the CB‐PRP group and 2.5 ± 0.267 in the control group; p = 0.009) and the mean VSS score at the 8th week (mean ± SD: 2.577 ± 2.003 in the CB‐PRP group and 6.962 ± 2.441 in the control group; p < 0.001) were significantly lower in the CB‐PRP group than those in the control group. However, there were no differences in Visual Analog Scale values between the two groups. The findings indicate that CB‐PRP potentially promotes wound healing following cesarean sections but does not reduce pain. Further research is needed to confirm the beneficial effects of CB‐PRP.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".