Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 2 Summary of findings table

From: Impact of platelet-rich fibrin on mandibular third molar surgery recovery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Impact of PRF on mandibular third molar surgery recovery
Patient or population: patients with mandibular third molar surgery recoverySettings: outpatientIntervention: PRFComparison: Non-PRF
OutcomesIllustrative comparative risks* (95% CI)Relative effect(95% CI)No of Participants(studies)Quality of the evidence(GRADE)Comments
Assumed riskCorresponding risk
 Non-PRFPRF    
PainVisual analog scaleFollow-up: 1-7 daysThe mean pain in the control groups was 7.52The mean pain in the intervention groups was 0.53 standard deviations lower(1.02 to 0.05 lower) 322(6 studies)low1,2 
SwellingA flexible rulerFollow-up: 1-7 daysThe mean swelling in the control groups was 20.79The mean swelling in the intervention groups was 0.55 standard deviations lower(1.08 to 0.01 lower) 212(4 studies)moderate3 
TrismusMeasuring the distanceFollow-up: 1-7 daysThe mean trismus in the control groups was 24.35The mean trismus in the intervention groups was 0.09 standard deviations lower(0.68 lower to 0.5 higher) 131(4 studies)very low3,4,5 
Alveolar osteitisFollow-up: 2-90 days179 per 100063 per 1000(29 to 134)RR 0.35(0.16 to 0.75)246(3 studies)low1,5 
Osteoblastic activityFollow-up: 28-90 daysThe mean osteoblastic activity in the control groups was 4.29The mean osteoblastic activity in the intervention groups was 0.05 higher(0.44 lower to 0.55 higher) 68(2 studies)very low1,2,5 
Soft tissue healingFollow-up: 2-14 days The mean soft tissue healing in the intervention groups was 1.03 higher(0.32 lower to 2.38 higher) 70(2 studies)low1,4 
  1. *The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI)
  2. CI Confidence interval, RR Risk ratio;
  3. GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
  4. High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect
  5. Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate
  6. Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate
  7. Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate
  8. 1 Having non-blinded study
  9. 2 The significant heterogeneity
  10. 3 No allocation concealment
  11. 4 Risk of bias
  12. 5 Pooled results included no effects