Skip to main content

Table 1 Study assessment based on inclusion and exclusion criteria according to the PICOS (patients, intervention, comparator, outcomes, and study design) approach (https://ro.ecu.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.it/&httpsredir=1&article=1010&context=ecupres)

From: Systematic review: Advances of fat tissue engineering as bioactive scaffold, bioactive material, and source for adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells in wound and scar treatment

  Inclusion criteria
P—patients Age 18–80 years, patients with soft tissue defects, chronic wound, scars, outcomes of scars, acne scars, post-traumatic scars, burns, outcomes of burns
I—intervention Local injection of autologous AD-MSCs, SVF, and F-GRF
C—comparator Any type of control, internal, external, and different product
O—outcomes Healing time, soft tissue volume maintenance, skin quality, scar reduction
S—study design Clinical trial, randomized clinical trial, case-series, case report, case-controlled studies
  Exclusion criteria
P—patients Other types of defects and pathologies, patients with platelet disorders, thrombocytopenia, anti-aggregating therapy, use of pharmacological therapeutics targeting WH as advanced dressing, hyaluronic acid, mononuclear cell therapy—platelet-rich plasma was tested as control in PRP studies, bone marrow aplasia, uncompensated diabetes, sepsis, cancer
I—intervention Allogeneic use of AD-MSCs, SVF, and F-GRF, dermal substitute, advanced dressing, hyaluronic acid, steroid injections, surgical procedures
C—comparator Not applied
O—outcomes Not applied
S—study design Expert opinion, comments, letter to the editor, preclinical model (animal studies), in vitro studies, articles identified as bias—not correct match with the keywords used and with the treatment, shorter follow-up than 3 months, review, and systematic review. No limitations were applied on ethnicity or method of fat processing